37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 023
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 28, 2001
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| GILDAS MOLGAT
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| GILDAS MOLGAT
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1405
| PATRICIA BAIRD
|
| Mr. Stephen Owen |
| HIV-AIDS
|
| Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| HEROISM
|
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
1410
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| INVESTMENTS IN THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR
|
| Ms. Pauline Picard |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1415
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| GILDAS MOLGAT
|
| The Speaker |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1420
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1435
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1440
| Mr. Randy White |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1445
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
| Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| EDUCATION
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| GOVERNMENT LOANS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1450
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1455
| CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
|
| Mr. Michel Guimond |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Michel Guimond |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Mr. John Finlay |
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Mr. John Finlay |
| RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
1500
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| CANADA JOBS FUND
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Alleged Unparliamentary Language
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1510
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
|
| Bill C-286. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
|
| Bill C-287. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-288. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1515
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Bill C-289. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
| Transferred for debate
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SPECIES AT RISK ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Second reading
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1520
1525
| Mr. John Herron |
1530
1535
1540
1545
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
1550
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
1555
| Mr. John Herron |
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
1600
1605
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1610
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1615
1620
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1625
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1630
1635
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1640
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1645
1650
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1655
1700
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1705
1710
1715
1720
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1725
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| TAX ON TOOLS
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Motion M-248
|
1735
1740
1745
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1750
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
1755
1800
1805
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1810
1815
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1820
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Foreign Affairs
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1825
| Coast Guard
|
| Mr. James Lunney |
1830
| Mr. Lawrence O'Brien |
| Employment
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1835
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 023
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, February 28, 2001
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, led by the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
GILDAS MOLGAT
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with sadness and heavy heart I rise today
to inform the House of the death of Senator Gil Molgat of
Manitoba.
Mr. Molgat, who just last month completed a rare two terms as
Senate Speaker, died this morning at the Ottawa General Hospital
after suffering a massive cerebral hemorrhage Monday evening
while on a flight from Winnipeg to Ottawa. He was 74.
Mr. Molgat was elected five times to the Manitoba legislature,
where he served as opposition leader from 1961 to 1969. He was
called to the Senate in 1970 and was Speaker there from 1994 to
January of this year.
Senator Molgat was a great parliamentarian who was driven by the
call to public duty. Above all, he was a gentleman and a true
friend whom we loved deeply.
We have lost a great Canadian and an extraordinary public
servant. He will be missed and long remembered. On behalf of
the House and the thousands whose lives he touched, I extend
condolences to Mrs. Molgat and the family.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote a letter I received
from two teachers expressing concern over the situation on
Canadians farms:
I have travelled in Canada from coast to coast and I have pride
in this beautiful country. I have been humbled and grateful to
be part of such a vast land filled with generous and friendly
people. I've agonized with the people in Quebec and Ontario
during the ice storm that was so devastating. I've watched in
horror the flooding in Quebec and Manitoba. And in each instance
I've sent a cheque because this is my country and my country
needed help.
I can't understand why the rest of Canada does not realize that
the prairies are now facing the same kind of economic crisis—a
crisis not of their making.
I am adding my voice to the rest, imploring those in power to
seek justice and economic fairness for those employed in perhaps
the noblest of professions—growing food for a hungry world.
Yours Sincerely,
Mike and Elaine Kowpak.
I urge the government to heed these words and take immediate
action to deal with the crisis facing farm families.
* * *
GILDAS MOLGAT
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Gildas Molgat was first elected to the legislature of Manitoba in
1953 when I was five years old. I became aware of him early on
in my life as his work as the Liberal leader and leader of the
opposition in the Manitoba legislature was often the focus of
some very heated discussion between my very Conservative parents.
Later when I, having joined the Liberal Party, finally met this
often demonized man, I was delighted to find a proud Manitoban, a
proud francophone and a committed Canadian.
Elevated to the Senate by Prime Minister Trudeau, Gil Molgat was
a formidable ally in the dark days when there was only one
elected Liberal, federally or provincially, west of the
Ontario-Manitoba border.
1405
He was tireless. When the troops were frustrated and
dispirited, Gil and his lifelong partner Allison were there,
working with us, leading us, teaching us, chairing campaigns,
recruiting candidates, and always advocating for his province and
his people.
Since my arrival here in 1993 it has been an honour and a rare
privilege to serve in the same caucus with him. He served for
six years in one of the highest offices in this country and yet
he never forgot what it was to be the MLA for Ste. Rose du Lac.
We will miss him.
* * *
PATRICIA BAIRD
Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to inform the House of the appointment of a
constituent from Vancouver Quadra, Dr. Patricia Baird, as an
officer of the Order of Canada.
Dr. Baird first came to the attention of Canadians across the
country when she produced her groundbreaking report on new
reproductive technologies in 1993. This report quickly became
the touchstone for this controversial area of genetics and public
policy, and Dr. Baird became a key contact when these issues
arose across the country as well as around the world.
She began her illustrious career at the faculty of medicine at
the University of British Columbia, the key institutional
constituent of Vancouver Quadra, where she was head of medical
genetics and took that department to fame across the country in
terms of research and clinical care.
In her personal capacity she has published over 350 papers. She
has been a member of the Medical Research Council of Canada and a
member of the Prime Minister's National Advisory Board on Science
and Technology. Dr. Baird is a most worthy officer of the Order
of Canada.
* * *
HIV-AIDS
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
currently four remote Nunavut communities are hosting youth
HIV-AIDS fairs in association with Health Canada and Pauktuutit
Inuit Women's Association.
Much like a science fair, projects and posters on HIV-AIDS were
created and will be the basis of future community based HIV-AIDS
education initiatives.
HIV positive youth will bravely share their stories with Inuit
youth and reinforce the message that it is so important to
prevent the spread of HIV-AIDS.
The youth of Arctic Bay, Taloyoak, Pangnirtung and Iqaluit took
on this project with enthusiasm and I know the important message
will be heard through Nunavut because of their courageous
efforts.
I commend their involvement in their communities and their
desire to protect their fellow man.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canada's soldiers have paid with
their lives and their health in the service of our country since
Confederation. How well we attend to the concerns of our
veterans is a matter of our national conscience.
Today we mark the 10th anniversary of the end of the gulf war.
With us today in the gallery are three retired gulf war veterans
of Canada's peacekeeping mission. They are Captain Louise
Richard, Petty Officer First Class Robert Clarke, and Captain
Sean Bruyea. Each bears deep scars to health and soul brought on
through their service to our country. Each wants respect and
recognition as a war veteran.
Today I call on the government to do right by these peacekeeping
veterans and to accord them the recognition and status that their
sacrifices so clearly merit. I ask my colleagues to join me in
welcoming our peacekeeping veterans.
* * *
HEROISM
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to share with the House a heartwarming
story that bridges the gap between generations and nations.
We have in Ottawa this week a very special visitor from France,
Guillaume Faure, a grandson of André Faure, who put himself at
risk to help a Canadian airman reach freedom during the second
world war.
During his 32nd bombing mission, Canadian airman Thomas Lynch,
who served in the Royal Air Force, was shot down over occupied
France some 50 kilometres northwest of Paris. Thanks to Madam
Faure and her teenage children who hid him from the Gestapo, Mr.
Lynch was able to contact the French underground and escape
safely to England.
More than 50 years later, Mr. Lynch and his grandson are meeting
in person for the first time with the grandson of the family who
saved his life.
This is a story that Canadians will be happy to hear. Through
Mr. Lynch, these two young men of a new generation are sharing
the experience that entwined their families.
* * *
1410
AGRICULTURE
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our farmers have already told us and now a report on
agricultural policy by the OECD is telling us that Canada's
support for agriculture is much lower than that of most other
OECD nations.
I applaud the Liberal government's commitment to a level playing
field to ensure that our agriculture and agrifood industry can
compete at the international level. Canada has taken great
strides toward this goal.
At this time, however, I would encourage the government to look
within Canada and provide our agricultural producers with the
tools they need to compete, including effective policies and
programs and more financial support.
* * *
[Translation]
INVESTMENTS IN THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago,
the China World Best Group officially signed a $45 million
investment agreement for the construction of a dye-works in
Drummondville. The plant will create 380 jobs in its first year
of operation.
Group president Zhou Yu Chen made the following statement “By
establishing ourselves here, we are going to be able to benefit
from Quebec's comparative advantages as far as the costs of
construction, energy and shipping, and particularly the quality
of its workers, are concerned”. He went on to say that he had
absolutely no concerns about Quebec sovereignty.
This, the first Chinese manufacturing plant to locate in Quebec,
chose to do so in the riding of Drummond, where companies from
over ten countries have already invested their foreign capital
in more than thirty properties.
Given that nearly all the elected representatives in Quebec are
sovereignists, it must be admitted that Quebec sovereignty no
longer frightens anyone.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, a Senate seat has now become vacant
in the province of Saskatchewan with the resignation of Eric
Berntson. This represents a wonderful opportunity for the
government to reach out to western Canada and show that it is
committed to meaningful parliamentary reform.
The Senate was created to provide the checks and balances
necessary for a democracy to work effectively. Areas of high
population should not run roughshod over less populated regions,
and for the Senate to be properly accountable it must be elected.
The separation movement in my riding would likely not have
started if the government had not neglected the agricultural
areas of our country.
Our next senator in Saskatchewan should be selected by the
people of Saskatchewan. The problem is not Canada. It is the
federal government and the fact that we no longer have an
effective democracy. It is more like an elected dictatorship.
Will the Prime Minister, who claims to represent the interests
of all Canadians, allow this seat to be held in trust until the
provincial government passes legislation to elect its federal
representatives in the Senate?
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, despite all its accomplishments, mankind owes its
existence to six inches of topsoil and the fact that it rains.
As sure as spring follows winter and the first robin is seen,
our grain and oilseed farmers will be taking their machinery out
of storage, preparing for spring seeding. As they venture out
into the fertile fields of our nation, as they prepare once again
to feed the world, there are storm clouds on the horizon which
may lead to a bitter harvest in the fall.
It is time for action. It is time for immediate assistance to
enhance our current farm safety net programs. It is time to
recognize our primary producers and aid them in their battle with
foreign subsidies four times higher than our own.
Spring planting will soon be upon us. Let us work toward that.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
like many Canadians I once believed that our country had a strong
record on the environment, a record we could be proud of both at
home and abroad.
However the sad reality is that under the Liberal government
Canada in fact has a rather shameful record. This was made
abundantly clear by the auditor general in his final report to
the House yesterday in which he summed up 10 years of
disappointment with the lack of federal commitment and action on
the environment. He once again highlighted in his report the
Liberal government's dismal failure to meet international and
domestic commitments to the environment.
Repeated audits have condemned the Liberal government for
failing to address important issues like urban smog, a particular
problem in my riding, and others such as global warming, toxic
substances, groundwater contamination and biodiversity.
The 1990 report of the auditor general asked of the environment
department who is minding the store, a question that is repeated
in yesterday's report but still remains unanswered 10 years
later. The auditor general's report—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.
* * *
1415
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Government of Canada has failed to address the catastrophic
problem with P.E.I. potato exports to the United States.
The government threw away the tools to work with when it
instigated the ban on Brazilian beef based on vague Canadian
scientific information. When the Americans then used the same
argument for P.E.I. potatoes, Canadians were unable to credibly
defend themselves because they had just used the same
questionable reasons to ban Brazilian beef.
The Government of Canada should now move to actively and
assertively deal with the serious problem which affects the
economy of the entire province of Prince Edward Island.
Will the minister of agriculture provide interim bridge
assistance for the P.E.I. farmers and will the Department of
Foreign Affairs aggressively deal with this problem on behalf of
these same farmers?
* * *
GILDAS MOLGAT
The Speaker: I would ask the House to rise for a
moment of silence in memory of our late colleague, the hon.
Senator Gildas Molgat, the former Speaker of the other place.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence]
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Translation]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, our GDP growth for the last quarter slowed to 0.6%.
This is the lowest it has been in three years, but the Minister
of Finance continues to assure us that things are just fine.
Why is the minister refusing to bring down a new budget to
reflect these economic realities which are constantly changing
and which changed today?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
know that the Leader of the Opposition is always on the lookout
for bad news.
But I must say that the last quarter was the 22nd consecutive
one of growth. This has not been seen since the 1960s.
While I am at it, I also want to tell him that our rate of
growth in the previous quarter was twice that of the United
States.
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he loves to talk about the United
States, so let us do that for 22 seconds.
The consumer confidence index in the U.S. dropped 8.9 points in
February. That is a drop that economists are telling us could
signal a recession. Just this morning U.S. federal reserve
chairman Alan Greenspan says the U.S. slowdown has not run its
course yet. That was just this morning and he loves to talk
about that.
In light of this continuing economic weakness in Canada's large
export market, to which he constantly refers, why is he not
adjusting our financial plan by bringing in a new budget of tax
and debt reductions?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the president of the United States spoke yesterday. Let
me just simply say that our stimulus package as of January 1 was
six times greater in the first year, the year the member is
referring to, than that being projected in the United States.
I would simply ask a question of the hon. member. Given the
fact he has just stated that the problem, as Mr. Greenspan has
stated, is one of consumer demand in the United States, what does
he recommend that I do to increase consumer demand in the United
States?
1420
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, those segues make it too easy. We
are not working a tag team here but I am glad he asked. I have
already sent him some recommendations which he has not followed
up.
The Bush administration in the United States is talking about a
$1.6 trillion tax cut and significant debt reduction. That will
create economic advantage over Canada. It will lure investment
and human resources.
His own former assistant deputy minister says we need further
tax cuts to remain competitive. What he is preparing us for is a
launching of more of the approach of failed government programs
and massive Liberal intervention into the economy, the type of
thing the auditor general has been criticizing.
Why will he not instead bring in a new budget with a significant
move toward tax and debt reduction?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is because President Bush's plan is over 10 years.
Ours is over five. President Bush's is back end loaded. Ours is
front end loaded. Ours is already in place. They are still
talking about it in the United States.
Let us take a look at the results: fourth quarter growth twice
that of the United States and 22 consecutive quarters of growth.
In case I forget, let me also say that in the numbers that came
out this morning Canada's current account surplus is at an all
time high.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I know that many people who have
recently been laid off at Nortel and other places will be
stimulated by this apparent lack of reluctance to accept what is
happening.
These are not my numbers. These numbers are reflected around
the country by people who watch what economies are doing. It is
his own former assistant deputy minister who said that the tax
cuts up to October closed the gap but the gap was still there.
Now the new proposals open it up again.
Why will the finance minister not include proper tax reductions
and debt reduction in a new budget to strengthen the economy and
strengthen—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why does the Leader of the Opposition not take a look at
what Mr. Drummond actually said? Why does he not take a look at
the reality?
I guess I will remind him. As a result of our budget, our
corporate taxes will be lower than those of the United States
after the Bush plan. As a result of what we have done, our
capital gains taxes will be lower than those of the United States
after the Bush plan. As a result of what we did, our treatment
of stock options will be more generous after Mr. Bush's plan
comes in. That is what we have done.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he is the only one using the Liberals'
own numbers who is saying that they have created the advantage.
Most other economists are saying it is absolutely not true. Since
I cannot address and engage the minister in this discussion, I
will ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister.
In 1991, only three months after a budget was overtaken by a
worsening economy, the now Deputy Prime Minister was in the
opposition at the time. He asked the finance minister at the time
to produce immediately a new economic recovery budget. Then he
asked, if not, would he and other ministers produce their
resignations. We are not asking for resignations. We are just—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member simply ought to get his act together. He
really should try from one week to the next to have a consistent
story.
The Leader of the Opposition is now standing and attempting to
fearmonger, attempting basically to say that things are very
gloomy. The fact is that we are not immune to what is happening
in the United States.
Would the hon. Leader of the Opposition tell us why it was only
two weeks ago that he stated publicly that we had a very
“vibrant economy in Canada”.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
[Translation]
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
learned this morning that the government of Quebec was going to
give the members of the national assembly's parliamentary
commission on institutions access to the texts of the
negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas.
The
government of Quebec is taking this initiative out of a concern
for transparency and to fight parliamentarians' loss of power of
through the phenomenon of globalization.
Since he is refusing to make the texts of negotiations public,
will the Prime Minister at least promise to give access to them
to the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade?
1425
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the minister explained, since we are the hosts and are chairing
the meeting, we have the obligation to our partners to follow
the rules, which provide that we can make our documents public.
However, in the case of the other governments not wanting to
make their position public, it is up to them. The suggestion of
having a conversation in the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade is something I would certainly
like to discuss with the minister responsible.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do
not think the Prime Minister understands my point. I am not
talking about making the texts of the other countries public. I
am talking about making public the texts serving as the basis of
negotiations at each of the tables.
The American representatives have access to these texts. Quebec
MNAs will too. The Minister for International Trade says he
wants to make all of these texts public and to persuade the
other countries to do so as well.
However, I am not asking for the texts to be made public. I am
simply asking that the members of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade here in Ottawa enjoy the
same rights and information as elected representatives in the
United States and in Quebec.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think that, on the one hand, all governments must abide by the
commitments that were made. On the other hand, however, I have
not rejected the suggestion by the hon. member.
We have already talked of holding a briefing for everyone.
However, should we do it in the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade? This is an idea I said I was
prepared to discuss with the minister. We will respond once I
have had a chance to talk with my minister.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when it comes
to transparency and consultation of parliamentarians regarding
international treaties, Canada comes pretty close to dead last.
Briefings will not correct the situation.
In the United Kingdom and Australia, governments are required to
table treaties before their parliaments, where they are debated
before being ratified.
How can the Prime Minister justify that, contrary to their
counterparts from other countries, parliamentarians in this
House are not entitled to this minimum of respect? How can the
government claim to be transparent when its actions have nothing
to do with transparency?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this was the subject
of a full day's debate recently on a Bloc motion. The fact of
the matter is that the point made during that debate remains the
same.
The process proposed here is the same process that has been
followed since Confederation. There is no change proposed. There
will be an agreement signed if and only when Canada feels it is
in the interest of all Canadians. That will be then brought to
the House of Commons for review, possible amendment, full debate
and then passage into legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the world is
evolving but the Canadian federation has a very hard time doing
the same, as the parliamentary secretary reminded us.
In addition to debating and reviewing treaties signed by their
governments, British and Australian parliaments have the power
to approve or reject these treaties, which is far from being the
case in Canada. The government underlined that by rejecting the
motion by the Bloc Quebecois.
Why is what is good for other
parliamentary democracies not good for Canada? Is the Prime
Minister afraid of transparency and democracy to the point of
behaving in such a way?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to
hear the member talk about the government being afraid of
transparency. The government has been the leader in seeking
transparency on trade treaties both at home and internationally.
There have been a number of meetings between the federal
minister and international ministers. There have been consistent
meetings with NGOs, with stakeholder groups. This went to the
standing committee before the last election. There is a
commitment to have it at the standing committee, as the member
knows, in the near future.
The minister will attend. It is obvious transparency is a high
priority for the government.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime
Minister spoke in Quebec City about the upcoming summit of the
Americas. He described it as an “extraordinary exercise in
democracy”.
1430
If the Prime Minister is serious about democracy, how could he
call this an exercise in democracy when Quebec City is being
turned into an armed militarized fortress during the summit and
when his government refuses to make public to elected
representatives and the people of the country the text that is
being negotiated? Is that not really contempt for democracy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is the duty of any government to make sure, if there
are people who want to demonstrate, that things are done in an
acceptable fashion for the protection of citizens in that city.
It is irresponsible for a member of parliament to encourage
civil disobedience when he has a chance to talk about it in the
House of Commons.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian citizens are entitled to be civilly disobedient if they
are being ignored and if democracy is being trampled on.
The Prime Minister has also spoken about the summit being about
human rights. Colombia has an appalling record of human rights
violations, one of the worst in the world with murders, massacres
and impunity.
If the Prime Minister is serious about human rights, why are
countries like Colombia and Peru invited to this summit when the
country of Cuba, with which we have an excellent trading
relationship, is not being invited? Why is there a double
standard?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, these governments have been elected. I want to be in a
position to talk directly with them about respect for human
rights. I want to tell them that respect for human rights is not
about members of parliament encouraging people to use civil
disobedience.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister. He will know that in his
interview with Keith Boag of the CBC, the ethics counsellor said
that when the counsellor was judging the appropriateness of the
behaviour of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister had not told
him about the phone calls the Prime Minister made to the Business
Development Bank on the Auberge Grand-Mère file.
That is a material omission. Why did the Prime Minister of
Canada not tell the ethics counsellor about these representations
to a crown corporation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this has been debated for the past two years. I said,
and I repeat, that as a member of parliament it is my duty to
work to create jobs in my district.
On this file, the caisse populaire and the Fonds de solidarité
were involved in the loan. I publicly talked about that all the
time. I did not hide anything from anybody.
It is the duty of a member of parliament to work to make sure
that jobs are created in his riding. It is exactly what the
member of parliament for Saint-Maurice has done and is his duty
to do all the time.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
let me try another one for the Prime Minister. Subsection 9(1)
of the conflict of interest code says “A public officeholder
shall make a confidential report to the ethics counsellor of all
assets and all direct and contingent liabilities”.
The Prime Minister knows that money owing is an account
receivable. It is an asset. When the Prime Minister filed his
statement of compliance he did not tell the ethics counsellor
about the phone calls, but did he tell the ethics counsellor that
he was owed money from the sale of the shares of the Grand-Mère
Golf Club?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the long answer is yes.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Antonio Nicaso is an expert on criminal gangs and
organized crime. He says Canada has always been a welcome wagon
for organized crime, a revolving door that lets anyone in
regardless of his or her criminal past.
Gaetano Amodeo is one of the world's most wanted criminals. Why
did the immigration department not stop him from entering Canada?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as soon as my department is given
information that someone is wanted, a flag goes up and our
frontline people then make inquiries.
1435
The member opposite knows full well that people from countries
of western Europe, including Italy, and people from the United
States do not require a special visitor's visa in order to enter
Canada.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the minister's answer is rather bogus
in that her department had issued visas to this gentleman. Not
only did the government let Gaetano Amodeo gain safe haven in
Canada, but the public works minister's office asked immigration
officials if the application would be approved soon.
Why was a cabinet minister helping a mob family establish itself
in Canada?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is completely wrong.
The premise of his question is wrong. I want him to know that
40,000 requests to immigration departments around the world come
from members of the House, 6,000 to CIC headquarters in Ottawa
alone. All members, including members of the Alliance, send in
those requests.
I can tell him, for example, that the member for Calgary—Nose
Hill has sent in 137 requests for information. I am happy to
tell him that it is completely appropriate for members to make—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mercier.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the summit of
the Americas will be held in the national capital of Quebec in a
few weeks. It seems natural to us for the premier of Quebec to
be able to address the state leaders of the Americas. Yet the
Prime Minister of Canada refuses to state his position here. He
is gaining time by telling us all is well.
Can the Prime Minister tell us, yes or no, whether the premier
of Quebec will be able to address the foreign leaders at
the summit of the Americas?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
the present time, discussions are under way between the federal
government and the provincial government. There are also
precedents, however. The discussions are addressing access by
the premier of Quebec to the heads of government when they are
in Quebec City. This is being discussed by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, the organizers of the meeting in Quebec City
and the government of Quebec.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we want to know
the Prime Minister's position on this. He must realize that,
the way things are at the moment, it is as if a big family
reunion were being organized in Quebec, our home, and we were
being asked to stay out on the porch, not to speak to the
guests, and wait quietly until they have all left before being
allowed back in.
Are we not to conclude from the words of the Prime Minister
that if we want to see Quebec able to directly address heads of
foreign states the only way to achieve this is for Quebec to
become a sovereign state?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
they always resort to humiliation to get what they want.
Hon. Sheila Copps: Victims once again.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: A few years ago, the G-7 summit was
held in Montebello, which, if I recall correctly, was in Quebec.
An hon. member: And still is.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: In this instance, the meeting will be held in
the national capital.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: At that time, the premier of Quebec
did not make a welcoming speech to the heads of the G-7
governments.
When the G-7 met in Toronto, Mr. Mulroney, the Prime Minister of
the day, did not invite the premier of Ontario to speak to the
G-7 representatives. When there was a G-7 meeting in Halifax, the
premier of Nova Scotia did not speak to the government leaders.
* * *
[English]
MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, when the public works minister was first considered
for cabinet the RCMP warned against it. Its concern was that the
minister had been the accountant for over 20 years to Agostino
Cuntrera, one of Canada's most notorious mobsters.
Now we learn the same minister helped expedite into Canada the
wife of a mob hitman affiliated with the same Cuntrera crime
family. This new information raises once again why the Prime
Minister appointed the public works minister to cabinet over the
concerns of the RCMP.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appointed the gentleman as a cabinet minister because
he is an honest man and a great Canadian citizen.
1440
When I see these people trying to drag this person through the
mud because he is an immigrant who came to Canada and became—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding all that, the public works minister
himself said it was an error in judgment to be associated with
organized crime.
Let us look at what else the public works minister said about
his relationship with organized crime. He said “If I had it to
do all over again, I would probably do things differently”.
Would he today in this House tell Canadians that he made another
error in judgment in helping the wife of one of Interpol's most
dangerous world fugitives to enter our country? Would he again
do—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find all that absolutely unacceptable because the
undertone of all of that is the fact that this gentleman is an
immigrant who came from Italy. It is a smear on people coming
from that country. That is the reason. If somebody is lacking
judgment, it is the gentleman who just got up.
* * *
[Translation]
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the current negotiations on the free trade area of the
Americas is raising the problem of Quebec's position at
international negotiating tables. The Government of Canada is
not permitting Quebec to attend.
How can the Canadian government refuse and justify its rigid
stance when a federal country such as Germany is obliged, when
its negotiations within the EU concern the exclusive
jurisdiction of its states, or Länder, to hand over control of
the negotiations to them?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where
the hon. member has been, but Quebec has been widely consulted on
these negotiations, as has every region of Canada.
There have been several meetings of the federal minister and the
provincial trade ministers. There have been meetings with NGOs
in Quebec and with the sectoral groups. There is a website with
five of our nine positions available to Canadians. There has
been extensive consultation with all parts of Canada, including
Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the parliamentary secretary got the wrong page in his
briefing book. We are talking directly about Quebec's place at
the negotiating tables.
In another federation, Belgium, the ministers of the federated
states can sit in Belgium's seat at the European Union council.
Why does the federal government consider it unthinkable to allow
Quebec to negotiate itself, when its own jurisdictions are
involved?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I was
not reading from any note in my briefing book because, quite
simply, it is the same logic that pertains to the question asked
of the Prime Minister about the premier of Quebec in addressing
this forum in Quebec City.
Why would the province of Quebec, or any other province in
Canada, be sitting there when there is a federal minister and a
federal government elected to represent very adequately the
interests of all Canadians?
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to quote from an internal departmental memo
written in June 1997, regarding the Auberge Gouverneur and the
Auberge Grand-Mère. It states “We should increase the cost per
job in order to keep the same amounts promised at the press
conference or as suggested by the Prime Minister during
discussions with the promoters”.
1445
The question is: Who forced these bureaucrats to buckle to the
Prime Minister's suggestions?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we had an RCMP investigation opened and closed on this
matter. We have the words and the investigation of the ethics
counsellor.
We have an investment in a hotel, which is running four years
later, and provides jobs for 19 employees, and we have members
who are asking questions about a matter that is now being
adjudicated before the courts for an individual who has increased
his pension unilaterally from $160,000 or $170,000 to $460,000.
That matter is being adjudicated where it ought to be
adjudicated, not here on the floor of the House of Commons.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, that was a nice try and very eloquently said about
the BDC, but this is an HRDC grant that I am speaking about.
Let me further quote, “It is a difficult decision as we depart
from regional guidelines, but we have to maintain the proposed
level of financing. I would like to give another answer but I
have no choice”.
Who bullied these bureaucrats into making sure the Prime
Minister's investments were secure?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, these questions have been asked in this place for the
last year and a half. Members of this place have asked the RCMP
to investigate. It has and it has closed the file. Members have
written the ethics counsellor asking for an investigation. He
has and has closed the file.
There is not a member in the House who does not believe that the
Prime Minister of Canada, after 38 years in this place, is not an
honourable gentleman. We are proud to stand with him on this
side of the House.
* * *
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have heard reports of an 11 year old girl who was abducted in
the U.S. and brought into this country to work as a prostitute.
Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell the House
what she is doing to help put an end to these types of
occurrences?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no one should doubt the government's
concern for the protection of children. We have a special
program in place called “Our Missing Children”. It has been in
place since 1986. It is an interdepartmental program that not
only works across the federal government but with international
partners.
Since 1986 they have reunited 937 children with their rightful
parents and legal guardians. In 1999 alone 110 children were
rescued. I only wished when I saw this story that the number had
been 111.
* * *
EDUCATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance. Nova Scotia has the poorest per
capita education funding in Canada. It is so bad that local
schools are closing and one school recently had to get a loan
from its parents to buy the paper needed for report cards.
However, when the minister rejigged equalization yesterday, Nova
Scotia received one measly million dollars out of an additional
$1.8 billion. How can he justify such treatment of Nova Scotia
while the provincial government is making further cuts to health
care and education, while basic services for Nova Scotians are
disappearing?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the allocation among provinces is not a question of
discretion by the federal government. There is a formula that
has been established for many years and it is that formula which
dominates. What has happened is that the Nova Scotian economy
has shown greater growth than many of the other receiving
provinces.
That being said, as I and other members have said in the House,
our officials are sitting down and we are looking at the issue of
equalization, and we do this on a continual basis.
* * *
GOVERNMENT LOANS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry and has to do with an
issue that I know he is concerned about and has concerned himself
with, and that is the impending departure of the Versatile
Tractors plant from Manitoba.
I wonder if the minister could tell us, given that the
immigration department has apparently now put a stop order on
Americans who have moved in to take equipment out of the plant,
if there is anything the government can do, admittedly last
minute, to prevent the departure of this plant to North Dakota
and some $30 million in federal money that was given to Mr.
Buhler as part of the agreement by which he took over that plant.
Is there anything the government can do?
1450
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member has raised this matter with me on another
occasion. It is true that we are seeing the loss of an industry
and a plant in the province of Manitoba that arises, as the
member knows, out of a protracted and extended labour dispute
where finally, in the absence of resolution, the decision has
been taken by the proprietor to move elsewhere.
No money has been given. Money has been loaned, and that money
has to be repaid, as the member knows and as we have discussed.
Following a discussion recently with the member opposite, I am
looking at all of the options open to the Government of Canada—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has a lot of rumours flying
around Parliament Hill right now. It seems, after numerous
protests and demonstrations, he has finally found some new money
for agricultural support.
I know the minister would love to stand and explain to the
elected members of the House just how much money he has for
agricultural support, how he will get it out into the hands of
farmers and when this will all happen.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has demonstrated clearly
in the last number of years that when assistance is needed for
producers, we are there with all the resources that we can
muster. I can assure the hon. member and the farmers that we
will continue to be there for Canadian farmers.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
that is well and good. I have heard that many times before, but
will the minister announce to this elected House right now how
much money he has for agricultural support?
When the finance minister needed $1.3 billion, he got it that
fast. Can this minister stand in the House today and say that he has
at least $1.3 billion? When will he get it out and how will
he get it out to the farmers who need it desperately?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said a minute
ago. I will not take the time of the House to do that because I
think the member heard me the first time.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Business Development Bank charged
the Auberge Grand-Mère an astronomical interest rate of 25% on
its loan.
Information obtained through an access request shows that the
highest interest rates offered by the BDC anywhere in Canada over
the last seven years was 12.6%. This means that the Auberge
Grand-Mère was twice as risky as the second craziest venture that
the BDC was prepared to finance.
Why did the Prime Minister use his political muscle to put
Canadian taxpayer money at such risk?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are having a hard time keeping track of the logic
being exhibited on the other side of the House.
First they complain that they get a loan. Then they complain
that the interest on the loan is too high. Now they claim
apparently that not only the Government of Canada but all of the
lending institutions that made the decision to grant this loan
did not act properly.
Four years later the hotel is still open, and four years later
19 people are still employed.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we have been pressing the government
to take another look at equalization, especially on behalf of
Atlantic Canada and Nova Scotia, and it has been resisting that.
Today, after I asked him yesterday, the finance minister
said no, that they will not discuss it. We have just heard him
today, and I appreciate this, say that his officials are looking
at equalization and maybe doing something. Which is it?
Will he go ahead and do what we asked, as he denied yesterday,
and have some discussion on equalization to see what can be done
for Atlantic Canada to make long term hope and opportunity
possible?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know how many times over the course of the last
three weeks to a month I have stated that our officials are
sitting down, which they do it on a continuous basis, and looking
at equalization.
I would have thought that as a former treasurer of Alberta,
given the fact that it was also discussed at a finance ministers'
meeting, he would know that it is an ongoing process.
The question I really would ask is, if he does not know it, what
was he doing at these finance ministers' meetings and what is he
doing in the House?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services.
We have learned that the budget of the Canada Information
Office, the federal government's propaganda machine, was
increased by 150%. This means a 150% increase in patronage and
contracts to friends of the government.
How can the federal government justify such generosity when it
comes to propaganda, patronage and cronies?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the CIO's permanent budget will
hold at $21.3 million for the next three years. All the other
adjustments are program transfers from departments to the CIO.
There is no new spending in these programs.
The CIO's role is that of a co-ordinating body for the
government's corporate communications. For reasons of
effectiveness, we have transferred the management of certain
programs from Public Works to the Canada Information Office.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a similar vein, is the House aware that the federal
government's hiring policy for the public service does not apply
to the CIO?
How does the minister explain this, unless it is because he has
decided to free himself of inconvenient rules so that he can
hire whom he wants, when he wants and how he wants?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member should read the
documents. He could have seen for himself that this arrangement
no longer exists, that the CIO concluded an agreement with the
public service and is treated just like all other agencies and
departments.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the auditor general tabled
his report in which he stated:
Our audits of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada have identified
a wide variety of problems, including poor accountability and
unacceptable results in Aboriginal programs.
Canadians on and off reserves are disappointed that their tax
dollars are not going to the people who need the help. Why is
the minister dragging his feet on demanding proper accountability
so that we can get some acceptable results?
Mr. John Finlay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Desautels is quite right in saying that the mandate of the
department of Indian affairs poses a highly complex and sensitive
challenge.
We understand that improved government to government
relationships will help the first nations in solving some of
these social problems on their reserves and in making them more
able to deal with the problems in the future. That is the way we
are working.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general states very
clearly that the minister and his department must be accountable
for the way funds are managed and that program results must be
acceptable. He insisted that management must be transparent and
responsible.
Does the minister acknowledge that the lack of accountability
threatens public support for these programs and at the same time
leaves aboriginal women and children out in the cold?
Mr. John Finlay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the department is working on this problem constantly. There were
900 audits last year. There were only 15 that were not accepted.
These problems require governance on the part of the first
nations, help from this ministry and some time and understanding
in order that aboriginal people can solve some of these problems
themselves.
* * *
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the last throne speech the government promised to
double research and development as part of its innovation agenda.
We on this side of the House have every confidence that the
government will honour this promise, as do Canadians, after all
they increased our majority.
Perhaps the Minister of Industry would like to explain to the
other side of the House how the government will honour its
promise.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the member knows, the government announced $140
million for Genome Canada in 2000.
1500
After consultations within cabinet and direction from the Prime
Minister and Minister of Finance I was able to announce this
morning, as part of our commitment to double R and D investment
in Canada, another $140 million for Genome Canada.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the government is currently negotiating a trade deal
with Costa Rica on sugar. Canada already has the most open sugar
market in the world. Any change to the present rules will be
disastrous to Canada's sugar cane refineries, sugar beet
processors and sugar beet producers.
Why is the government so hell bent on systematically destroying
our agriculture industries one at a time by poorly placed trade
policies?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of
Canada is very interested in a free trade arrangement or free
trade agreement with Costa Rica. Discussions are ongoing to
achieve that type of arrangement. We feel that progress is being
made.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, any agreement with Costa Rica will lay the foundation
for future negotiations with other Central American countries and
eventually the FTAA.
Will the government live up to a commitment it made to western
Canadian beet producers when it was in western Canada last year
that it will do nothing to destroy their industry? Will he stand
here today and say that the government will not hurt the sugar
industry in Canada?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite
self-evident that by pursuing a free trade agreement with Costa
Rica the only interest the government has is in improving the
trade relations of all parts of the economy of Canada with the
country of Costa Rica.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA JOBS FUND
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following
the transfer, in June, of the Canada jobs fund to
Canada Economic Development, Quebec employers are still waiting
to find out what amount of money will be allocated and what the
criteria for government assistance will be.
It has been almost one year since the fund was transferred to
Canada Economic Development. I am asking the secretary of state
responsible for economic development to tell us where the money
from that program is. What did he do with that money? When will
he set the criteria?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of
the question is that the funds have not yet been transferred to
Canada Economic Development. They will be as of April.
Canada Economic Development takes initiatives to support the
development of all regions of Quebec, under certain criteria
that are closely monitored by Treasury Board. We work under a
system of refundable contributions.
The funds that will be added to base A, that is the regular
budget of Canada Economic Development, will be managed by the
government so as to maximize regional development and job
creation.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
The Speaker: The Chair has received notice of a question of
privilege from the hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois. I wonder
whether it arises out of today's question period.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): It does,
Mr. Speaker. During Oral Question Period, we occasionally
exchange remarks with members on the opposite side of the House.
I know you do not like our doing so, but we do talk directly to
each other on occasion.
I commented to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, during the
debate on the free trade area of the Americas, that in Canada
there were two nations, the Canadian nation and the Quebec
nation.
His reply: “There is but one country, one nation.
The Quebec nation does not exist”. To this he added “You're
crazy”.
It is unusual for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to adopt such
an attitude toward members on this side of the House, and even
some within his own party, I imagine.
I call upon him to withdraw his words. This is unacceptable
language in parliament. I believe he should act as a respectful
parliamentarian and withdraw what he said to me.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is
unable to respond at this time—although I cannot remark on the
presence or absence of a member—to the point raised by the leader
of the Bloc Quebecois in the House of Commons. I promise that I
will raise this with him.
1505
I am convinced that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois will also
wish to discuss with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot the
frequent comments he makes in similar circumstances.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House leader to
limit himself to what I asked. If accusations are to be made
against the member on this side, let him make them.
Rather than spread innuendo, let him make specific charges and
act rather than try to say “We will answer your question, but,
as you know, it seems normal to say this sort of thing”. This
is his attitude.
It is not easy, because a spirit of competition and invective
prevails, but I think we must limit unacceptable excesses. I
ask the House leader to stick to this case, to behave as a
respectful parliamentarian and to not make insinuations without
proof.
The Speaker: The Chair will consider the situation
described by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and, if
necessary, I will return to the House.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
ALLEGED UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your
attention that the member for Waterloo—Wellington has been
yelling things across the floor that are totally unparliamentary
and unacceptable.
I understand that he is far enough away that it is very
difficult for you to hear these remarks, but they are well heard
on this side of the House. It is unacceptable. I would ask the
Speaker to speak with him privately and tell him to resist the
temptation of what he has been doing for the last few days.
The Speaker: The Chair will take the comments of the
chief opposition whip under advisement.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I
have the honour to present to the House, in both official
languages, the report of the 30th annual meeting of the Canadian
group of the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association held
from September 9 to September 16, 2000 in France.
[English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a great honour to present to the House, in both official
languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary
Association delegation which represented Canada at the
preparatory meeting of the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development at the Council of Europe in London, England from
January 16 to January 20, 2001.
I am also honoured to present in both official languages, under
Standing Order 34(1), the report of the Canada-Europe
Parliamentary Association delegation which represented Canada at
the Council of Europe parliamentary assemblies plenary session
held in Strasbourg from January 20 to January 27, 2001.
* * *
1510
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-286, an act to amend the
Official Languages Act (provision of bilingual services).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the enactment is to
redefine the criteria set out in the Official Languages Act so as
to avoid unnecessary expense. In setting criteria for
significant demand, the act states that 25% of the population of
an area must speak an official language in order to warrant
service in the language.
I would point out that in addition to restoring sanity to the
language debate and to the language laws of our country, the
amendment would end the current effort by the federal government
to force the newly amalgamated city of Ottawa to be officially
bilingual.
The amendment would result in a rational approach to
bilingualism in which regions whose numbers did not warrant it
would not incur unnecessary expense and unilingual Canadians
would not be denied fair access to jobs in the public service.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-287, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act
(genetically modified food).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill, as you have already indicated,
would provide for a mandatory labelling system of all food
ingredients that are or that contain a genetically modified
organism.
The bill would require the genetic history of a food or food
ingredient to be recorded and traced through all stages of
distribution, manufacturing, packaging and sale. This
requirement would ensure accurate labelling.
The precautionary approach adopted in the bill would allow the
Minister of Health to monitor the presence of genetically
modified foods in the Canadian food chain and to initiate
research into the potential long term effects of the consumption
of genetically modified foods on human health.
Finally, the bill would also enable food manufacturers and
consumers to make an informed decision when purchasing products
containing genetically modified material.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-288, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (impaired driving causing death or injury).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this private
member's bill again which would enhance and assist police
officers in their ongoing battle against impaired drivers on the
highways. The enactment would in essence expand the investigative
powers of police officers and give them the ability to
automatically demand a breath or blood sample when an accident
has occurred in which death or bodily harm was the result.
This private member's bill has broad support from groups like
MADD and from individuals across the country, like the Murrays
from Pictou county, Nova Scotia, and others, who want to see
impaired driving in the country curtailed.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1515
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-289, an act to amend the Young
Offenders Act (public safety).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my first
private member's bill. The bill seeks to make the protection of
society the first and guiding principle of the Young Offenders
Act.
In the name of public safety, the bill allows for the publishing
of all names of young violent offenders. It also seeks to change
the minimum age of criminality from 12 to 10 years of age. It
provides young people, who at this tender age get mixed up in
crime, with the opportunity for guidance and rehabilitation that
is necessary for them to get back on track.
In June 1997 the justice minister promised to make amending the
Young Offenders Act a top priority. That was almost four years
ago and nothing has been done. There have been a number of
futile attempts but we are still saddled with what the minister,
in her own words, calls “easily the most unpopular federal
bill”.
I ask for all members to help with the bill for the sake of our
children and grandchildren.
The Speaker: I know the House will appreciate that it is
the hon. member's first bill, but he should know that a brief
summary of the bill is all that is permitted on introduction. It
is not an opportunity for a speech. I know the hon. member
perhaps got away with a little more than he might on the second
crack at it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that you call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No.
P-3 in the name of the hon. member for Lakeland.
The Speaker: I cannot recognize the hon. member for
Lakeland. He is not dressed for speaking. I gather the hon.
parliamentary secretary will call one of these notices of
motions.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, if you call Motion No. P-3, I
will speak to it. The member opposite may also wish to speak to
it.
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all studies
which were done prior to the banning of the 2% and 5% solutions
of strychnine to show the effect the banning of these solutions
would have on Canadian Farmers.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like this motion transferred for debate.
The Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the other Notices
of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SPECIES AT RISK ACT
The House resumed from February 27 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife
species at risk in Canada, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
when I was concluding my comments yesterday I was addressing
concerns that we have about the bill and specifically with the
protection for the endangered species habitat.
1520
With regard to the wide discretionary power of the minister to
designate an endangered species, one of the problems we have with
regard to the legislation is that if he ever does so there is a
30 month time lag during which only the nest, the den or the
immediate locale where the species reside is protected. The
protection does not extend to the habitat for the entire 30
months.
A prominent environmentalist has been quoted as describing this
as protecting a bedroom while allowing for the destruction of the
house and the bulldozing of the neighbourhood. It is a very
accurate portrayal of one of the weaknesses in the legislation.
It will be our argument at committee where we will seek
amendments that to be effective the legislation must make habitat
protection mandatory, not discretionary, and that the exercise of
that discretion be over a much shorter period of time.
Our second major concern with the bill is the methodology by
which an endangered species is listed. COSEWIC, the committee on
the status of endangered wildlife in Canada, has been tracking
endangered species and placing them on a list for several decades
now. The committee would continue to exist under the new
legislation, but even though its decision is based on purely
scientific methodology it would not be the final determinant of
whether an endangered species is listed under the legislation and
receives protection. That decision would only lie in the hands
of the minister and may be based on any number of other
considerations.
Our concern with this process is that it is subject to wide
discretion. In spite of the fact that the bill has a number of
provisions about community participation, making information
available and claiming to protect vulnerable wildlife, everything
hinges on the minister's discretion. There is no provision for
how that discretion would be exercised. It does not have to be
based on science. It may be based on the COSEWIC list, and then
again it may not. There are no provisions for that.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are 354
species on that list. Would they be protected after the bill is
passed, assuming it gets passed? The answer is that they would
not. There is no provision in the bill to make that already
existing list a part of the legislation.
Again this is an item that must be addressed. We will be
arguing strenuously both in committee and in the House that the
legislation should incorporate that list by grandfathering it in
so that species already at risk in the country would become
protected immediately.
One other major issue is that the bill contains no provision, no
detail or fleshing out around what compensation would be provided
to people who are financially disadvantaged once the bill is
passed and put into place.
The minister is indicating that perhaps there would be some
provision in the regulations, but he is reserving the discretion
to himself as to when it would be used. We would argue that we
do not have a lot of confidence. A number of other existing
pieces of legislation have been in place for 20 to 30 years where
at various times it could have taken steps as a government to
protect endangered species. It has never done so.
On behalf of the NDP I indicate that we do not believe people
should be financially impacted negatively without compensation.
Landowners must be assured that they are not facing personal
losses if a species is designated on their property. Similarly
it is our position that workers in various industries and
communities that could be impacted by the legislation should be
compensated.
1525
We believe the guiding principle in this regard must be that the
cost of protecting endangered species should be shared by all of
us, not just the people on whose land endangered species happen
to live.
One final major concern we have is with regard to the extent,
geographically and jurisdictionally, that the legislation would
cover. Let me throw out this one statistic. It will only cover
five per cent of the country.
Recognizing that I am almost out of time, I will make one final
point. The legislation is extremely weak with regard to
protecting our migratory birds and animals. If they cross the
border they will probably be protected in the United States but
they will not be protected here.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, thank
you for giving me this honour to participate in this debate. As
the Progressive Conservative Party, and as a recognized party in
the House, we have a prearranged order for speaking. I would
request from the Chair that attention be paid to that particular
issue because on other occasions previous members have been
missed.
I will now begin my 20 minute speech by saying that it is a
pleasure to have a chance to participate in this particular
debate. As members know, this will be the first piece of
environmental legislation that we have seen before the House in
this particular parliament. Members will also know quite clearly
that this will be the government's first attempt to pass its
first piece of environmental legislation since taking office on
October 25, 1993. It is the government's first bill of its own
initiative.
Mr. Speaker, you may recall, being the learned individual that
you are on legislation, that the previous Conservative government
was very proactive with respect to environmental legislation. We
delivered to the country an acid rain protocol with the
Americans, a packaging protocol that we did in conjunction with
industry to reduce waste in our landfills. The Conservative
government also pioneered a bill known as the Canadian
environmental protection act which was first tabled in 1988.
Canada was a world leader on environmental protection by
bringing the international community together in eliminating and
reducing the consumption of ozone depleting gases with the
Montreal protocol of 1987. The hon. Jean J. Charest was a very
proactive environment minister who brought forth legislation with
respect to new inroads in reducing pulp and paper effluent. One
of the other hallmarks, in addition to the acid rain protocol
brought forth with the Americans, was the $3 billion green plan
which had an infinite affect on pollution prevention.
Having said that, this is the government's third attempt to
bring forth a piece of legislation to protect species at risk or
endangered species. Bill C-65 died on the order paper leading up
to the 1997 election. The hon. member for Saint John was active
in the debate at that time. We also know that Bill C-33 died on
the order paper as the Prime Minister chose to call his vanity
election three years and four months into his mandate.
The position of the Progressive Conservative Party will largely
follow the positions developed by the species at risk working
group, which is composed of the Canadian Pulp and Paper
Association, the Mining Association of Canada, the Canadian
Nature Federation, Sierra Club of Canada and the Sierra Legal
Defence Fund.
1530
These are individuals who are normally at each other's throats
when it comes to developing legislation of this sort, but they
have been able to build an unprecedented consensus, which I
believe the government should be utilizing far more than it
currently is.
In December 1999, a few weeks after the Progressive Conservative
Party tabled its position paper, the government tabled a brown
paper, which actually described essentially what its legislation
would be composed of. Our position paper was graded A by the
environmental community and received accolades from industry
groups as well, while the government's position paper received a
mere D.
I would like to compliment not only the consensus that was built
with respect to SARWG, the species at risk working group, but
also the consensus that was built with the Progressive
Conservative caucus on this file. It is a unified position built
in conjunction with our natural resources critic, the member for
South Shore, with our agricultural critic, the member for
Brandon—Souris, and with the leadership that we received from
the right hon. member for Calgary Centre in ensuring that we had
a very comprehensive and team approach to this particular piece
of legislation.
We are all well aware that Canada has over 300 species that are
at risk or endangered. I believe endangered species are what we
could call our canaries in the coal mine. When we continue to
lose species from our environment, from the various habitats, it
is an indication that our overall environment is starting to
decline. That will have a negative effect on the air we breathe
and the water we drink.
Here we are eight years after the government has taken office
and this is its third kick at the can in trying to deliver a
piece of environmental legislation. After all the consultations,
after all the homework, one would think we would essentially be
reviewing a piece of legislation that would be nearly perfect.
As the critic from the NDP pointed out in his remarks a few
moments ago, we are far from there.
There are a couple of particular issues I wanted to speak about
with respect to the legislation. Clearly, habitat loss is the
single largest cause of why species become at risk, become
endangered and ultimately become extinct. Habitat loss is
responsible for over 80% of species decline in Canada.
Bill C-5 and its predecessor, Bill C-33, are in fact weaker than
the first attempt at species at risk legislation that was brought
forth, which was known as Bill C-65. Bill C-65 had significant
problems, but it did contain stronger provisions for habitat
protection, especially on federal lands. This was largely the
result of the work of the environment committee.
Bill C-5 does not require protection of critical habitat for
endangered species. It merely states that cabinet may protect
it. This is a significant shortcoming, especially when critical
habitat protection is crucial to survival of a species. Some of
Canada's best loved species could potentially become at risk,
whether it is the beluga whale, the woodland caribou or even the
grizzly bear.
By making habitat protection discretionary, the federal
government is abdicating responsibility for major areas within
its own jurisdiction, and I will repeat that: within its own
jurisdiction. We are not asking the federal government to
actually sidestep or make a foray into jurisdictions where it
does not have the responsibility. The federal government can and
must protect habitat of all species within federal jurisdiction.
This is absolutely critical.
Upon review of Bill C-5, members of the House will recognize the
fact that there are provisions for the federal government to
intervene in provincial jurisdictions to protect species at risk.
There are provisions whereby the federal government can intervene
on private lands to protect species at risk. However, it is not
mandatory under this legislation to protect species at risk
within federal jurisdiction, or within federal lands, for that
matter.
1535
This is indeed ironic given the response from the environment
minister to the last speech from the throne. He said “Any
species protection legislation must include provisions for the
protection of critical habitat of endangered species. This is
fundamental. No habitat, no species”.
We would like to have a piece of legislation that would reflect
the minister's own words as spoken in the House.
Building successful legislation requires input and support from
affected stakeholders. The Progressive Conservative plan calls
for carrots before sticks, for incentives to reward stewardship.
We believe it is imperative to encourage, recognize and reward
stewardship by offering more carrots and resorting to fewer
sticks.
We believe this can be accomplished by listening to the concerns
of stakeholders and by working in co-operation with them to build
a consensus on an effective legislative design and, most
important, engaging stakeholders in the recovery process.
Finding an endangered species on one's land should not mean that
all development stops. The key is to manage the land to ensure
that a species can continue to survive. We have to do away with
the myths that have been spoken about. I am talking about the
myth that finding a species on one's property will result in an
immediate economic loss. We can reward stewardship. There are
many ways to address this particular issue.
The fact is that if a species at risk is found on a woodlot
owner's lot, chances are the owner is working under responsible
forestry management regimes that actually encourage an
environment for the species. If the species did not like it
there, it would not be there.
The Progressive Conservative Party believes that without the
support of the provinces, private landowners, resource users and
communities the endangered species bill will be impossible to
institute. Moreover, it will be ineffective. It will breed the
“shoot, shovel and shut up” response, which will result in more
species at risk.
The Progressive Conservative Party believes that when designing
a recovery plan, with stakeholders of course, social and economic
considerations must be accounted for. Both objectives can be
achieved, both to encourage stewardship and save endangered
species. These objectives are not mutually exclusive.
Another glaring weakness, which I would say is the most obvious
and which the member for Windsor—St. Clair touched on, is that
in Bill C-5 the cabinet rather than scientists will decide
whether a species is at risk. The committee on the status of
endangered wildlife in Canada, the scientific body that has been
in place for decades, will not have the call on determining
whether a species is endangered. This puts at risk the
extinction of any species that cabinet opts not to protect and
makes the decision a political one rather than one based on
scientific fact.
There is an enormous flip-flop from the Canadian Alliance on
this particular issue. I am not talking about pensions or
Stornoway or anything like that. What I am referring to in this
particular circumstance is that we can give solid credit to the
member for Red Deer and what he now believes. Although the
member for Edmonton—Strathcona who was the previous critic said
that it should be a political determination as to whether a
species is at risk, I interpreted from the speech of the member
for Red Deer in the House on February 21 that he believed
scientists, not politicians, should determine whether a species
is at risk or not. I find it shameful that the Liberal Party of
Canada would be the only party in the House of Commons that would
rather resort to a political listing perspective.
I know that my friend who will be speaking shortly on behalf of
the Liberal Party was a member of the environment committee that
studied this particular issue. An all party consensus was built
that the scientific list of COSEWIC should be adopted and that
COSEWIC should determine whether a species is at risk or not.
Now the Liberal Party of Canada is reneging on its promise on
that particular issue. I find that very shameful indeed.
1540
While the Liberals may argue that they do not want the
scientists to be lobbied as to whether a species is at risk or
not—
An hon. member: And the minister won't be.
Mr. John Herron: And the minister won't be. First, today
scientists can be lobbied. That is a case in point. Second,
those provinces that have permitted a political listing regime as
opposed to a scientific listing regime just do not add new
species to their endangered species lists. Species do not get
listed. That has been the practice. That is what the witnesses
have actually told us before a committee.
The categorical issue is that we believe in order for the
Progressive Conservative Party to support this bill we must have
mandatory protection of critical habitat on all federal lands
and, I might add, within federal jurisdiction, we believe, and we
must have scientific listing, not political listing, in order for
us to be able to support the bill. That is why we will be voting
against the bill at second reading.
However, the committee may have its chance to be able to address
these particular concerns, and I will comment that the Minister
of the Environment, since the election, has had a far more
co-operative approach to this particular issue and to the
committee's work than he had exhibited beforehand. So we will
take the minister at his word that the committee, in conjunction
with all the critics and all members of the House, will have a
chance to ensure that we have better legislation which will
protect species at risk.
The other aspect I would like to be able to touch upon with
respect to this bill is to challenge the Government of Canada to
take a harder look at the SARWG position. That particular
committee, consisting of the Mining Association of Canada, the
Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Canadian Nature
Federation, the Sierra Club of Canada and the Canadian Wildlife
Federation, has built a coalition that we should be celebrating
and utilizing to a larger degree than we currently are.
The protection of species at risk is a fundamental issue of
public policy that all Canadians want addressed. A government
commissioned Pollara poll indicated quite clearly that over 94%
of Canadians want strong species at risk legislation to protect
our endangered species. Those findings were from all regions,
including those regions in rural Canada.
We have seen the provinces take a lead in at least tabling
species at risk legislation over the last number of years since
the Rio earth summit of 1992, when the Government of Canada at
that time really cared about the environment and was a
fundamental leader on environmental issues. We have not seen
this federal government following suit.
I would like to quote the executive director of the Sierra Club
of Canada. She said that if this bill is passed in its current
form it would be the weakest endangered species legislation in
the world.
There is a framework here that could be augmented and could
actually produce a very relevant bill, a very good bill, that
would protect our natural heritage in this country.
That is where we are right now. We are speaking from a position
of currency at the moment. During the election campaign it was
the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and, I might add,
the NDP, that actually received accolades on their positions on
protecting species at risk in their platforms of the election of
November 27, 2000. The Government of Canada neglected to put it
this its platform. It was added to its website later on. The
government said it had forgotten about it. We are here to remind
the government that this is a very important issue of public
policy.
We have laid out our position. We look forward to working
co-operatively with the minister and the chair of the environment
committee and to trying to work diligently at the clause by
clause stage in order to produce a sound piece of legislation.
1545
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me begin by saying I intend to split my time with
the member for Yukon. Other than a few comments I made in last
evening's debate, this is really my maiden speech. As such, I
would like to begin by thanking the constituents of
Elgin—Middlesex—London for honouring me as their third term MP.
I know hon. members will agree that obviously the highest
professional honour anyone could ever have is to be elected to
parliament. It is simply a tremendous overwhelming honour that
they have elected me three times and I am very grateful for that
privilege.
I would also like to thank my family for their support and in
particular, my wife.
An hon. member: What is her name?
Mr. Gar Knutson: Her name is Christine. She has had to
deal with the challenges of being married to a member of
parliament over the last seven years and I appreciate her
support.
Last, if I may be allowed to stay with the personal issues for a
minute, I would also like to thank my parents for their support
and, in particular, my father for his guidance. Unfortunately,
he passed away just after the election.
As I turn now to the issues of today's debate, we should ask
ourselves the question, why should we care? Does it matter in
effect that the loggerhead shrike is on the verge of extinction?
Does it matter that the passenger pigeon has become extinct? We
all know that extinction exists in nature. The dinosaurs have
become extinct. In effect, why is this an issue?
The issue of extinction is not the natural rate of extinction,
but we should concern ourselves when species, whether they are
plants or animals, are becoming extinct at a rate far faster than
they would under normal evolutionary circumstances. We should
care at a most basic level because extinction of plants and
animals may be an early warning of our extinction, that is the
extinction of the human race. If not of our extinction, it
should at least be an early warning of threats to our well-being.
Endangered species can play the role of a canary in the mine
shaft. If all of a sudden our frog population is declining
because of changes in the atmosphere which can be a signal that
we need to change our ways. It can be a signal that there is
tremendous damage being done to the environment, to the
ecosystems, to the plants, to the animals and to human beings,
which depend on those ecosystems. It is important that we pay
attention to these issues.
We should also care because of the importance of biodiversity.
By that I mean, having the widest possible variety of plants and
animals on the planet earth. We should care for medical reasons.
Oftentimes, unthought of medical solutions, whether they are
pharmaceuticals or whatever, come from plants that probably have
not even yet been discovered or categorized.
We should not only care for practical reasons in terms of our
own self-interest, but I believe that we should also care for
more basic spiritual or religious reasons. While I do not share
an animal rights point of view of the world, I believe our
natural world deserves our respect. The unnecessary extinction
of plant or animal species is akin to a crime.
I would also like to suggest that Canada has a particular
responsibility to deal with this issue. With so much of our
population concentrated in a relatively small part of our land
mass, habitat protection, which is fundamental to species
protection, is relatively easy for us when compared to other
countries with larger populations or perhaps fewer resources. If
Canadians cannot protect habitat and the species that depend on
them, how can we expect other countries to do it? I think it is
our responsibility to take a lead on this.
Talking about habitat protection and more specifically,
protecting wilderness, His Royal Highness, Prince Philip, stated:
The sorry story of the almost absent-minded degradation and
destruction of so much of the world's biosphere is becoming only
too well known to millions of people. Every other day there are
disturbing stories about the burning of tropical forests,
reclaimed wetlands, polluted rivers, lakes and oceans and the
growing list of species of animals and plants becoming extinct.
Canada has an almost unique opportunity to ensure that future
generations will be able to see examples of the state their land
was in before the rush for development and exploitation began.
The task is to conserve a whole range of viable ecosystems and
habitats covering all the country's natural regions. It is also
necessary to ensure that those human activities that impinge
directly on the natural environment, such as forestry, farming
and commercial fishing, adopt sound conservation practices.
1550
That was in the forward to a book put out by the World Wildlife
Fund called Endangered Spaces.
In the same book, William Francis Butler is quoted upon visiting
the western plains shortly after confederation. As he stood in
an ocean of grass and solitude he said “One sees here the world
as it has taken shape and form from the hands of the creator”.
He had a profound respect for the land in its natural state.
Before I turn to the details of the bill, let me also just say
that a concern for extinction is part and parcel of a more
general concern about the environment. It would make no sense at
all to concern ourselves with endangered species while not
concerning ourselves with, for example, climate change. Any work
we do on habitat protection can be wiped out in a matter of
months, if not days, by damage from our weather systems.
Fundamental to any activity is an appropriate humbleness as we
look out upon the world and respect for nature.
On that same theme, again taking a particularly Canadian view,
writing in 1944 on a wilderness canoe voyage, Pierre Trudeau
said,“I know a man whose school could never teach him the
patriotism but who acquired that virtue when he felt in his bones
the vastness of his land and the greatness of those who founded
it”.
We have it from the great Prime Minister Trudeau himself about
respect for nature and respect for the Canadian wilderness. It
is part and parcel of respect for habitat which is fundamental to
protecting endangered species.
In my remaining time let me comment directly on the bill that is
in front of us. The government should be applauded for making
some improvements on its previous legislation. Specifically, the
compensation part of the bill is going to be essential for having
the bill accepted in various parts of the country. It is clear
that the cost of changing behaviour should not be borne simply by
the landowners. There is a public good at large. Consequently,
the public should be prepared to pay for land conservation or
habitat protection. I do not foresee this being a tremendous
amount of money. It would be money well spent.
However I share with some of my colleagues in the opposition and
my Liberal colleagues concerns about the bill. The legislation
needs to go further in terms of protecting habitat, particularly
in the area of federal jurisdiction. I have concerns about who
actually does the listing. I look forward to exploring that
issue further in committee.
I also have concerns about the rollover of the list. Currently
we have identified some 300 plus plants and animals that are on
the verge of extension or are threatened. Most, if not all of
the scientific work, has been done. We can make this list part
of the legislation itself rather than making it the subject of
cabinet regulation.
Those are my initial concerns. I look forward to working with
the opposition on this very critical issue. It is part of a
broader issue of concern for the environment. As we look
forward, the environment will be the issue of the next period of
time. This is only one small part of proper environmental
stewardship and I am happy to play a role in it.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I was very pleased to hear the hon. member indicate his concern
that this legislation, as it is currently drafted, does not go
far enough in a couple of critical respects.
Could he elaborate on the two most critical areas in particular
that have been raised by my colleague, the member for
Windsor—St. Clair? The first is the question of habitat
protection. The second is who will ultimately have the
responsibility for designating which are the endangered species?
Will it ultimately be politicians or scientists? Could he
comment on those two issues and his intention to seek the
strengthening of the bill in those two very important areas?
Mr. Gar Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the
simpler question first which is the issue of federal
jurisdiction. I have been quite clear that we should have a
section in the bill that says that the government or the minister
is required to pass regulations that the protect habitat within
areas of federal jurisdiction.
1555
Unfortunately, when the Fathers of Confederation wrote the
constitution in 1867, environmental concerns were not part of the
decisions on which level of government, federal or provincial,
had jurisdiction.
There is some debate in the country, on a legal level in the
courts and on political levels in Ottawa and provincial capitals,
as to who actually has jurisdiction. That is something the
committee needs to turn its mind to before making a final
decision on this. It is something I have an opinion on but it is
not a universal opinion. The committee needs to look at where
federal jurisdiction ends and provincial jurisdiction begins.
Regarding the other issue of who makes the final decision, the
question is not as simple as it may seem at first. If we are
going to give blank cheques to scientists and ask them to tell us
what is on the verge of extinction, which on a certain level
sounds quite attractive, and if politicians are not part of that
decision, they need to follow a close second behind that and
question the consequences of the listing.
For example, what recovery plans or socioeconomic costs are we
prepared to endure in order that a species might be protected? Is
it practical that a particular species be protected? Those are
questions that need to be answered as part of a recovery plan or
part of a process.
Certainly scientists should be given the opportunity to tell us,
from a scientific basis, what should be listed. There is a
proposal floating around calling for a reverse onus. Species
would be listed and the government would have 90 days, or a
similar time period, to take them off the list with an
explanation as to why. Perhaps that is a better way to go at it.
Again, this is one of the things the committee needs to turn its
mind to, listen to the debate and the various views from the
government and others, and make a recommendation either by
passing an amendment at committee stage or some other form,
depending on what the committee's views are.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
question I have for the hon. member is quite simple. I believe
he was a member of the standing committee that actually studied
this particular issue. It produced a report leading up to Bill
C-65. The all party report recommended adopting the COSEWIC
list, in particular grandfathering the COSEWIC list, as well as
using it as the starting point.
I had previous conversations with the member on this issue.
Does he maintain that same position on the listing process or has
there been some 11th hour revision?
Mr. Gar Knutson: Madam Speaker, my colleague's facts are
a little off. What was part and parcel of Bill C-65 was a
referral to committee before second reading. This was toward the
end of the 1993 parliament. From my memory, automatic listing
was never agreed on or never passed.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
happy to help introduce Bill C-5, an act respecting the
protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada because during
the election I was asked if our government was going to
reintroduce the bill.
Today I will make only introductory remarks because there will
be much feedback and suggested improvements from constituents to
input later when it will be reviewed in committee. For instance,
I met with an official of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund. He
assures me that he will present its detailed input to the
committee.
1600
I have also received a letter from Juri Peepre, executive
director of CPAWS Yukon, which highlights three key areas: strong
mandatory habitat protection, public accountability, and a very
creative compromise ensuring science based lists and the ultimate
role of cabinet. I forwarded the letter to the minister and to
the committee chair.
Senator Ione Christensen, the other half of the Yukon caucus,
and I often work together on initiatives and this is no
exception. Senator Christensen has distributed Bill C-5 to such
Yukon organizations as the Yukon Outfitters Association, the
Yukon Chamber of Mines, Minister Dale Eftoda, Grand Chief Ed
Schultz, the Yukon Conservation Society, the Yukon Chamber of
Commerce and the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce.
Notwithstanding the fact that parliament has been receiving and
incorporating input on the main elements of the bill for seven
years, I will forward any feedback I receive from those other
organizations to the minister and the committee chair just as I
have with the CPAWS letter. It is very exciting to be part of an
effort to help preserve some of the species we share the earth
with.
Members who were here through the first two iterations know it
is not easy to come up with common ground for such a huge variety
of stakeholders, some of whom want weaker legislation than that
presented today and some of whom want stronger legislation.
Because there are species that inhabit virtually every metre of
our nation, there are obviously a myriad of stakeholders and
interests with whom to try to build common ground.
In my constituency in Yukon there are first nations governments,
territorial governments, municipal governments, land use planning
bodies, farmers, miners, loggers, trappers, sports and
subsistence fishermen, big game outfitters, tourists, wilderness
adventurers and campers, boaters, naturalists and snowmobilers,
et cetera. Our challenge as a parliament is to come up with a
bill that protects species and is as acceptable as possible to
the many elements of our diverse society.
Bill C-5 incorporates a number of new suggestions from
individuals and groups as refinements to previous drafts. The
following are some highlights.
It prohibits the killing, harming, harassing, capturing or
taking of species officially listed as threatened, endangered or
extirpated, and the destruction of their residences. It includes
a public registry and a scientific assessment of species at risk.
There will be mandatory action plans and recovery strategies,
including the ability to enforce critical habitat protection. It
provides the authority to prohibit the killing of endangered or
threatened species and the destruction of their critical habitat
on all lands in Canada.
It provides emergency authority to protect species in imminent
danger. It uses three mechanisms: positive incentives, which we
hope will be used in most cases; strong legal protections; and,
if absolutely necessary, the Government of Canada can act alone.
It complements and works together with first nation, provincial
and territorial governments. It involves landowners and land
users. It uses traditional aboriginal knowledge.
It complements the stewardship program in which Canadians can
take voluntary actions to protect habitat. It fulfils Canada's
obligations to the court for protection of species at risk. It
unifies the efforts of the provinces and territories.
There will be some compensation which will act as a positive
incentive to assist in implementation. Budget 2000 provided $90
million over three years and another $45 million thereafter.
Some work has already been done. Under the new habitat
stewardship program the Government of Canada has contributed $5
million toward 60 partnership projects with communities and
regional organizations. In the government implemented ecological
gift program Canadians can use capital gains for ecologically
sensitive lands and easements for the protection of habitat, a
measure I support because habitat is a concern in my riding. It
recognizes the role of boards established under land claims
agreements such as the UFA in Yukon.
I will also use the debate to highlight a relatively new process
in the federal government, the rural lens. It is one of the
initiatives of the Secretary of State for Rural Development. Any
new initiative by the federal government should be examined
through the rural lens to see how it affects rural Canadians in
ridings such as mine in Yukon.
Bill C-5 has been carefully vetted through the lens in its
development. I would encourage all members of the House to
support the use of the rural lens for all programs, services and
legislation. It is very helpful to Yukon residents and to rural
Canadians in all ridings to have new initiatives viewed through
their eyes.
We hope the bill will bring stakeholders together in support of
the common goal of saving species. The bill shows respect for
property owners by having many co-operative and voluntary
recovery possibilities and compensation if need be.
I will, however, fight to ensure that the rights of rural
Canadians and Yukoners are reflected in this and other
legislation. Yukoners often live on the land with these species,
sometimes at -50°C, and all have learned to survive together.
The proof is that at the present moment, according to the Sierra
Legal Defence Fund, of the 364 COSEWIC listed species there are
no species in the endangered category in Yukon.
1605
We could not tolerate the dictums of an urban created myth that
does not reflect our rural reality. We hope all parties will
support the legislation and help Canada live up to its
international obligations.
[Translation]
Nine provinces and territories, including Quebec, have laws to
protect species at risk. Bill C-5 is structured in such a way as
to complement these laws and not to create overlap.
[English]
A number of provinces and territories do not have comprehensive
legislation and, in the long run, the bill is a safeguard to
filling those gaps. Any time two governments work toward the
same noble cause, in this case preserving species, they may on
occasion run into overlap. However, if it came, for instance, to
saving a species of whale, I would rather have overlap than a gap
because failure is irreversible.
[Translation]
Failure is irreversible. We respect the agreement on
harmonization, because the intent of this legislation is to
complement the efforts made by the provinces and territories.
[English]
If a province has a combination of its species at risk and other
complementary legislation in place so that everything is
protected, then this or other complementary federal legislation
will not have to kick in.
[Translation]
I think that Bill C-5 is effective and in keeping with the
Constitution of Canada.
[English]
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the
Environment said the last time around on May 11, 2000 “We have
examined and benefited from the experience of other
jurisdictions, other provinces, other nations”.
I have a short note on the compensation percentage under the
legislation. The deal will be covered in regulations. It will
be thought out and studied carefully over the next several months
and will be ready in time for the bill to be passed.
The time to act is now. As the NDP member for
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar said on May 29, 2000, in the previous
debate, “Worldwide we are experiencing the largest extinction
since the time of the dinosaurs. Historically on average about
two to three species a year went extinct due to natural causes
but currently two to three species go extinct every hour”.
As the Bloc member for Jonquière stated on May 15, 2000 “I
would like to state the position of the Bloc Quebecois since
species are disappearing more rapidly, the problem is serious and
we must take effective action”.
The Alliance member for Edmonton—Strathcona said, on the same
day, “I am confident there is nothing partisan about endangered
species and nothing partisan about protecting endangered
species”.
[Translation]
That said, I hope we will be work together to pass this bill.
[English]
In 1623 a British parliamentarian said that if a clod of earth
washed away from Europe then Europe would be less. It would be
fitting, in that context, to say that if a species dies out then
we are diminished because we are involved with them.
In this House of great bells, a parliament I respect, the bells
will soon be calling us to vote. If we do not enact legislation
to protect species at risk, then heed the words John Donne wrote
in 1623:
If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well
as if a promontory were...any man's death diminishes me, because I
am involved in mankind, and therefore never send for whom the
bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate the member for Yukon who just spoke. However I
could not help but notice a contrast between what the member for
Yukon said, which sounded like he was very supportive of the
bill, and what the member with whom he was sharing time said,
which was that he had concerns with the bill and was looking to
make some changes.
I have a specific question for the member for Yukon. In reading
the bill our concern is that it does not cover the federal
government's core jurisdiction, especially north of 60, with
which the member for Yukon will be a lot more familiar than me.
It does not cover the habitat of migratory species and does not
apply on federally owned lands north of 60, which incidentally
make up about 95% of federal lands.
Would the member for Yukon comment on what I perceive to be a
deficiency in the bill?
1610
Mr. Larry Bagnell: Madam Speaker, with regard to the
member's initial comment, I too mentioned the same concerns as
the previous member but I mentioned them in the context of those
who have more information than I do.
The Sierra Legal Defence Fund will comment on those very issues
at the committee meeting. The CPAWS Yukon branch, and Juri
Peepre's letter, which mentioned the issues of habitat protection
and scientific listing, will be at the committee meeting. I look
forward to those issues and concerns being brought to the
committee.
If a province or territory does not act, even if it is not in a
federal jurisdiction, there is provision for the federal
government to act to save a species. The member raised a very
important point relating to federal lands in Yukon. There was a
deficiency in that area in the last round, but I have been told
it has been changed in this round.
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the
speech made by the member for Yukon. I am still an active
farmer. What happens if farmers do find an endangered species on
their farm? What type of compensation will be in place for them
so they will not have to resort to what I refer to as the three
s's: shoot, shovel and shut up? Could the member tell us
what type of compensation package would be available?
Mr. Larry Bagnell: Madam Speaker, the federal government
is emphasizing conservation actions before compensation. I
listed a number of available programs and projects in which
Canadians have voluntarily and through community projects
protected a number of habitat. I also mentioned the amounts of
money, $90 million and $45 million, that were available for those
programs.
The destruction of critical habitat, especially on private land,
is a last resort and hopefully in most cases it will not come to
that.
The Pearse report had some very detailed direction on
compensation. It will be studied by the department and the
compensation will come out in the regulations. That is why we
have made no comment on the exact percentage. The Pearse report
had recommended 50%, but we still need to study in detail the
ramifications and what would be the best compensation framework.
It is a very complex issue and the exact details will be handled
in the regulations.
In order to allay some fears that members on the other side
might have, I would like to say that expropriation is not
envisaged. The minister has been on record as saying that he
does not think it would ever come to that and that other methods
would be used to ensure habitat protection.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time. I
am pleased to address the topic of endangered species again in
the House of Commons. My party supports the government bringing
in this bill early in the legislative calendar. Our party
members from coast to coast have repeatedly voted at national
assemblies for the creation of such legislation if it works in a
pragmatic way to find the balances needed to be a viable law.
The specific purposes of the enactment are to prevent Canadian
indigenous species, sub-species and distinct populations of
wildlife from becoming extirpated or extinct, to provide for the
recovery of endangered or threatened species and to encourage the
management of other species to prevent them from becoming at
risk.
1615
The committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada,
commonly known as COSEWIC, is an independent body of experts
responsible for assessing and identifying species at risk.
COSEWIC's assessments are to be reported to the Minister of the
Environment and to the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation
Council. It authorizes the governor in council to establish by
regulation the official list of species as risk based on that
process.
The legislation requires that the best available knowledge be
used to define long and short term objectives in a recovery
strategy for endangered and threatened species. It provides for
action plans to identify specific actions. It creates
prohibitions to protect listed, threatened or endangered species
and their critical habitats. It recognizes that compensation may
be needed to ensure fairness following the imposition of the
critical habitat prohibitions. It creates a public registry to
assist in making documents under the act more accessible to the
public.
The government claims it is consistent with the aboriginal and
treaty rights and that it respects the authority of other federal
ministers and provincial governments, as the legislation has a
shared federal-provincial jurisdiction.
Our party has a principled approach to the bill. The written
constitution of the Canadian Alliance, under point no. 10 in the
addendum under statement of principles, states:
We believe that government must act for the benefit of future
generations as much as for the present, maintaining policies that
will nurture and develop the people's knowledge and skills,
preserve a stable, healthy and productive society, and ensure the
responsible development and conservation of our environment and
natural heritage.
Further in the party's published declaration of policy about the
balance between environmental protection and economic and social
development, paragraph 44 states:
We are committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural
environment and endangered species, and to sustainable
development of our abundant natural resources for the use of
current and future generations. Therefore we will strike a
balance between environmental preservation and economic
development. This includes creating partnerships with provincial
governments, private industry, educational institutions, and the
public, to promote meaningful progress in the area of
environmental protection.
Paragraph 45 states:
We believe responsible exploration, development, conservation
and renewal of our environment is vital to our continued
well-being as a nation and as individuals. We will establish a
unified and timely “single-window” approval process, and will
vigorously enforce environmental regulations with meaningful
penalties.
Paragraph 46 states:
Canada's water is an especially precious resource over which we
must maintain complete sovereignty. Any federal legislation
dealing with this resource will respect that jurisdiction is
shared with the provinces.
My assertion is that the Canadian Alliance is a lot greener in
character than portrayed in the media.
Significantly, we temper our environmentalism with responsible
attention for the pragmatic. We will not be tempted to propose
things that cannot be realistically delivered, unlike what all
the other parties have done from time to time. The government
talks a great line but has done little in substance on the
environmental front since 1993. Certainly its accomplishments do
not match up to its overreaching rhetoric.
A sticking point with the bill will be cost. When action is
taken to change human behaviour for the national and
international good, we must organize ourselves so these broad
objectives are indeed broadly shared in cost. We can probably
look to the case law around expropriations for guidance rather
than the current suggested formulas. Certainly the mechanics
must be placed in the bill rather than left to uncertainties and
the changeableness of regulation. In my view, it is the major
shortcoming of the bill.
The government is to be commended for again attempting the bill.
However if there is no receptivity to amendments at the upcoming
committee and report stage, then the whole world will know that
what is important to Liberals is the name of the bill. They can
then say that they actually have a bill, rather than putting in
place a workable set of rules that will actually save species. I
do not think the current form of the bill will do it.
There is also a huge body of additional expertise available to
find a better balance which must be incorporated if we as a
society are going to save anything.
1620
In conclusion, I am claiming that a Canadian Alliance government
would be proactive on environmental issues in a responsible way.
While being a leader, we would work most diligently at the
international level to bring our neighbour states along because
in many respects protecting endangered species knows no borders.
The government has not told the truth to Canadians about the
ramifications of the Kyoto agreement. Therefore I am not so sure
that it is entirely sincere with its endangered species bill
either. That remains to be seen.
We will work to make the bill more effective in a pragmatic way,
for the earth is our home for now and we have stewardship
responsibilities for all it contains. The public will is there
to do good things. Let us hope that the government will also
find it.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague talk about judicious
stewardship of endangered species and pragmatism. I am a farmer.
We have some land in Alberta with a creek running through about
80 acres. When my wife and I bought the land we also bought the
land adjacent to the creek and we pay taxes on it. It is not
excluded from our title.
Now there may or may not be some endangered species of wildlife
or flora on that land. I know there are a few bush partridges. I
fret about their existence and wonder if they are endangered.
Would my colleague like to speak to the effectiveness of the
bill? If someone finds that I have an endangered species on that
land, will I have to forfeit the use of the land? As it is, our
cattle go down to the creek to drink. Are there provisions in
the bill that would compensate me if I had to set land aside for
some endangered species to flourish? Does the bill provide for
that? If not, what would my colleague suggest to improve that
situation?
Mr. Paul Forseth: Madam Speaker, the problem with
endangered species legislation, and it was certainly the problem
in the American experience which was litigated through the
courts, is that the good intentions of a law can wind up having a
perverse purpose or a perverse consequence. We have heard of the
tendency of the three esses from a previous speaker.
The main problem is that in order to further a protection regime
some intended use of someone's land could be prohibited, or
perhaps the land currently in fallow may require a future plan
for planting crop. Landowners, especially in rural Canada, are
already doing myriad things to preserve endangered species and
the characters of wildness and habitat. The bill must recognize
the wonderful things that are ongoing.
In the example cited, maybe some limits would have to be placed
on the watering of cattle. Maybe there would have to be some
mitigation factors such as a small amount of fencing to keep the
cattle from destroying the shoreline of the stream or ensuring
they only have access to the stream at a specific spot.
Perhaps there are other fields where the cattle would not be
allowed during the early part of the year or they would be not
allowed to go into a section until later in the year, after
nesting has been completed. There are some costs involved.
Perhaps the cattle would have to be trucked to another field or
fed in a feedlot.
The principle of that is that if there is a national or
international objective there must be fair compensation for the
willing landowner who wants to co-operate but does not want to
pay the total social or environmental cost specifically by
himself when the nation wants this objective accomplished. The
problem is that in the bill there is no formula.
1625
Professor Pearse was asked to do a consultation paper for the
government but rumour has it that the minister is not predisposed
to accept that formula.
We will have to look at regulation in the future. I suggested
in my speech that perhaps we could look to the body of law and
jurisprudence that is already there and learn from the
expropriation principles. However we are not talking about
expropriation. The cost could mean a limit on use at a
particular time of the year or maybe putting up a new kind of
fence in an area to protect some nests.
The problem with the bill is always cost. The administration
has difficulty putting in legislation something that has open
ended cost into the future. I can understand the government
being very careful to stay away from that.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to this bill today.
The idea of a bill to protect endangered species has been kicked
around Parliament Hill for a long time. It has gone through
numerous ministers. The only continuous factor has been the
chairman of the environment committee, the member for Davenport,
who has been through all of it and is certainly an advocate for
strong environmental laws.
We support the protection of endangered species. My colleague
from Red Deer said the other day that polls have indicated that
95% of Canadians support some kind of legislation to protect
endangered species. He wondered why it was not 100% and why
anybody would not want to do that? We agree that it needs to be
done, but it needs to be done in a way that is fair and that
deals with some issues that we feel are not being dealt with in
this bill.
We will support the bill but we will put forth some amendments.
We are hopeful that the government will, at some point in time
during the bill's process through the House to become law, look
at those amendments. We are also hopeful that the government
will listen to the people of Canada and make the changes needed
to make the bill work properly.
We cannot have the three s's, shoot, shovel and shut-up, in
Canada. It happened when some strong handed legislation was
introduced in the United States and it did not work. We need to
deal with co-operation, compensation, partnerships and working
with stewardship initiatives in the private sector.
Compensation and scientific integrity are two issues in the bill
for which we will have a lot of input. Scientists should decide
what species are at risk. They should create the list and that
is it. There should be no political interference in who decides
what an endangered species is. It should be done scientifically
and then presented to the House.
However, I feel, and I am sure this has been stated by others,
that if any action is taken on that list it will require dollars
and the intervention of some body with authority, which should be
the duty of the elected politicians.
We have to be very careful that the co-operative efforts put
forward already and the stewardship initiatives that we see
across Canada are supported, enhanced and rewarded. We have a
huge concern with that issue. We have to ensure that the people
who are working so hard on their own to create habitat for
endangered species and to preserve habitat that exists are
recognized.
I had a great opportunity the summer before last to go up to the
eastern irrigation district around Brooks. I was invited up
there by a fellow named Tom Livingstone. There is a huge tract
of pure virgin prairie grass that is being used for grazing. It
is managed very well. There are oil and gas wells on this land.
1630
Among all of this is the burrowing owl habitat. I was able to
actually see a number of owls living there and raising their
young right in among the cattle and the other development. The
people there do things very carefully. They make sure that when
the species need to be left alone, they are left alone. There is
a huge tract of water that is used for wildlife and fowl. It was
incredible. There were antelope and all kinds of ducks and geese
there. It was quite a thing to see. These people have done that
as an irrigation district to preserve what was on the prairies
when we first came.
So in regard to this idea that we need to have heavy-handed
legislation to bring our ranchers, our oil and gas exploration
companies and our farmers into line, I do not think it needs to
be done. If we work co-operatively with them and show them some
support for their initiatives, we can go a long way to really
doing this thing in a proper manner.
We have to make sure of something: people have told me that
they want to have input into the bill. They want the committee
to sit. After the committee gets Bill C-5, people want it to
hear witnesses from all sectors of society. They want the
committee to travel, to get out to parts of Canada, to get into
the north. The member from the Yukon has issues in his area.
People on the east and west coasts have issues. All across
Canada people should have the ability to come to the committee to
present their ideas to help make a bill that will work well. I
encourage the members of our caucus on that committee and the
others to work that way, to get out and go across this country to
get that input that is so rightfully needed.
My party feels the compensation issue has to be in the
legislation. To say that it will be worked out in regulation
afterward is not something that we can live with. We certainly
do not support the position presented by the Pearse report that
one does not receive compensation until over 10% of one's
livelihood has been affected and then one is only compensated for
50%. We would like to see full compensation. If we do it that
way, we will encourage landowners and others to really take an
active part in this. That has to be in the legislation. It has
to spelled out very clearly that compensation will be given and
that it will be given to the full extent that the landowner is
affected.
The idea that all Canadians feel something needs to be done for
the protection of endangered species brings us to the fact that
all Canadians should be part of the cost of any mitigation
implemented to preserve habitat. If it is a cost to society in
general, then let us put it into the legislation and let all
Canadians have a look at what that means. Certainly the elected
officials have to be the people who are responsible for any
spending of dollars that go into the protection of endangered
species.
When I was on the environment committee we talked at length
about residual powers, as we have here, about who should have
effect over whom or which level of government and provinces
should. A lot of the provinces have strong endangered species
legislation. We have to work hand in hand. We have to receive
the input from the provinces. We must make sure they understand
that this is going to be a co-operative effort and that the end
result will be to the benefit of the endangered species in the
country.
We saw some really unusual coalitions formed when the bill was
introduced last time in the House. We saw environmental groups
get together with industry. We saw the mining industry come
forward with the pulp and paper people, the Sierra Legal Defence
Fund and the Canadian Wildlife Federation. Seeing all these
people getting together to work together for the common good of
endangered species was very encouraging. That is something that
we as a country have to build on.
We have to encourage these types of partnerships and coalitions
to get together to come up with the right plan that will work. If
we have them all involved, if we have input from everybody and if
we come up with the proper balance, there is no reason why we
cannot have a law in place that will do the job but will allow us
to go on with our lives.
Members know that we need to preserve what is here. I have
children and grandchildren and I certainly want them to have the
ability to see the things that I have seen in my life. We need
to do this as a country.
In regard to the whole idea that it will not work, the idea that
one part of society will go against the other and it will not
come to be because we cannot come to an agreement, I do not buy
into that.
I think there are ways we can do it. If we have the compensation
in the bill, if we work hard at the co-operative level to reward
stewardship and reward the programs in place today—and enhance
them if need be—if we show that we are willing as a government,
as a body of elected officials, to receive input from Canadians
in all parts of society, we will have support. We will have a
bill that we can work with.
1635
One of the things I experienced in the environment committee
when we went through some other legislation was the wish of some
to take out any reference to the word economics. If we were
looking at social and economic reasons for doing something,
people said let us not worry about the economics. However, I
think we need to. When we are talking about the livelihood of
people on the land and on the waters of the country, we need to
bring that into the mix, into the formula.
Let us put the compensation aspect into the bill, let us work
co-operatively, let us listen to all Canadians and let us come up
with a bill we can all be proud of.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member in
reference to those who work our land, our farmers, ranchers and
any others who are using the land as their living, because they
have been there a long time. I can remember as a youngster the
care taken by farmers and ranchers in the area where I grew up to
make sure there was a sort of habitat for some of the birds and
some of the ground animals. That seemed to be the order of the
day. That seemed to be the norm.
Today we have a very highly mechanized farming community and
that concern is still out there, because it is something, it
seems, that is passed on from one generation to another. I can
recall farmers leaving wide tracts of grassy plain spotted with
trees to allow the birds and ground animals to flourish there.
They deliberately set that land aside so that they too could
enjoy seeing those creatures around.
I do not think a great deal has changed in our farming
community. I will ask the member to tell us if he sees that kind
of change taking place since he is from that same background.
I also have another question. I was in California three years
ago, in the Fresno valley, where there is a very strong
environmental law. I must say that I find it almost unsettling
to think of the reaction that would take place if that kind of
law were to come up here in regard to those who are protecting
certain species at risk and how the state handles it. I will
relate to members the situation that I learned about down there.
A farmer ploughing his land in the Fresno valley happened to run
over a nest of kangaroo rats and kill them all. The
environmentalists had been monitoring this. They swooped down on
the poor farmer and seized his equipment. Here was a man who was
trying to make a living in a very competitive world. They held
his equipment, almost like they had the evidence and they were
going to keep it, much to the detriment of his business. He is
subject to court appearances and court action at great cost,
which he has to bear, because he happened to run over some
endangered kangaroo rats.
There is something out of balance there. I would like the
member for Lethbridge to comment on that and tell us if he
actually envisions something like that happening here.
Mr. Rick Casson: Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I
was referring to. If we have a heavy-handed command and control
approach to protecting endangered species, we will not have any
co-operation. We need to do it in a co-operative way, recognize
that landowners are faced with some of these situations and help
them get by.
1640
One thing in the bill is penalties. There are penalties of a
million or half a million dollars for this or that. If that is
to be in the bill, why can we not have the compensation factor in
the bill as well? We have to let people know there is some
mechanism in place that will allow them to carry on with their
way of life or their processes without giving them the heavy end
of the stick all the time. We must have some method of keeping
people working.
Certainly I was raised in an agricultural community and I too
have some farmland. When I drive through the rural parts of this
country, I am encouraged to see the things that people are doing
on their own accord. Some of the practices we have today do take
out some of the protective hedgerows and things. I will not deny
that. However, in other areas people are still volunteering to
put some land aside to create habitat and we really need to
encourage that.
One thing the member mentioned too was this whole idea of people
being able to point a finger at a person who is on the land, say
that the person has just disturbed some critical habitat and
bring a suit to bear against that person. We have a little bit
of a problem with that as well. We think there should be a way
to do this without having everybody who is going for a long walk
in the country being able to point, say that something is wrong
and get some action started.
Co-operation and the balance are the things we are getting at.
We need to see that. If those things are not there, the bill
will not work.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It is my duty
pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, Foreign
Affairs; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni, Coast Guard; and
the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, Employment.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
Minister of the Environment is to be congratulated for
reintroducing the bill. It is urgently needed.
As we all know, Canadians care about endangered species, as
proven by the many conservation projects across Canada, and the
minister has provided funding to support current and future
initiatives in this respect.
His promotion of stewardship is a major improvement over
previous bills. In addition, the measure to provide a safety
net, should the provinces fail to enact similar provisions, is
also a fine improvement on the 1996 version, namely Bill C-65.
The minister should also be commended for some changes to Bill
C-33. His changes include definitions in the bill, so amended to
be consistent with those used by the committee on the status of
endangered wildlife in Canada, a scientific committee. His
changes also include the publication of specific documents in the
public registry set up under the act, to provide greater
openness, transparency and accountability.
Let me now describe some of the shortcomings of the bill, which
could be corrected in committee. As regards the initial list of
species, cabinet may, on the recommendation of the minister,
establish the list of wildlife species at risk, but it may not.
The bill does not even guarantee that there will be an initial
list.
Scientists have appeared before the Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development. They expressed a
serious concern. There are currently approximately 185 species
that have been reassessed by scientists. As I recall the
discussion, we were asked that the reassessed scientific list,
currently at 185 species, come into force at the moment the
legislation is proclaimed so as to make it the starting list. I
support that proposal. Earlier this afternoon, the member for
Elgin—Middlesex—London put forward another proposal which I
think has a great potential.
As to future changes by scientists to the list of species at
risk, it is important to note that the provincial record, because
of reliance on political listing, is very weak. Only 12% of
endangered species have made it onto the legal list in Quebec;
only 23% in Ontario; and only 32% in Saskatchewan. The abysmal
provincial record shows how little protection may be given to
species when politicians decide about listing.
The poor provincial record also underlines how crucial it is for
Bill C-5 to ensure that the federal safety net will apply should
a province fail to protect a species identified at risk by
scientists. I commend the minister for having included this net.
It is worth noting by contrast that in Nova Scotia the scientific
list automatically becomes the legal list under the legislation.
We should follow the Nova Scotia example.
1645
Another weakness with the bill is that it contains too much
discretion. In too many instances the minister may make a
recommendation to cabinet, but he or she may not. Then there is
the hurdle posed by the fact that cabinet may decide to enact
crucial provisions of Bill C-5, but it may not. This means there
is uncertainty in the implementation of the act affecting those
who use the land. Landowners and other interested parties would
not be given a clear indication of how they are to improve their
practices to protect endangered species because of the
uncertainty surrounding the implementation of key provisions of
the bill.
Next, as we all know, the primary cause of the loss of species
in this country is the loss of habitat, therefore, the importance
of critical habitat. There is very strong public support for
mandatory habitat protection. I received over 1,500 postcards
and letters urging the government to provide mandatory habitat
protection and I am sure my colleagues have too.
In the bill there is no mandatory habitat protection to species
even within federal jurisdiction. Provisions against destroying
the critical habitat of an endangered species would apply only
where specified by cabinet even on federal lands. Similarly,
regulations to implement necessary measures to protect critical
habitats on federal lands are left to the discretion of cabinet.
By contrast, in the earlier bill, Bill C-65 which died in the
35th parliament, the responsible minister had the authority to
regulate or prohibit activities that would adversely affect the
species or its critical habitat. Why should cabinet be required
to determine every component of the critical habitat to be
protected for every species? Why not give the authority to the
Minister of the Environment alone?
Then we come to the protection of the critical habitat of
species within federal jurisdiction. That includes species on
federal lands, migratory birds, aquatic species and cross border
species. Here again the critical habitat of species at risk
within federal jurisdiction may or may not be protected,
depending on the will of cabinet, not of the responsible minister
alone. Why leave such a key decision, clearly within the federal
government's jurisdiction, to the entire cabinet and not to the
Minister of the Environment alone as is very often the case with
other important key legislation in other sectors?
Moreover, prohibitions against destroying critical habitats may
apply to species on federal lands in the exclusive economic zone
of Canada or in the continental shelf of Canada. Cabinet may
make regulations to protect critical habitats only on federal
land. These sections of the bill need to be strengthened to
include all federal jurisdictions, namely all federal lands,
migratory birds, cross border species and aquatic species.
The Minister of the Environment made a strong commitment when he
said in the House on February 19: “These species, the species at
risk, and their critical habitat will be protected whether they
are on federal, provincial or territorial or privately owned
land”.
However there are too many layers of discretion in the bill to
facilitate the implementation of the minister's commitment. There
are two other ministers whose approval is also needed. Then there
is the whole cabinet that needs to be persuaded to act. The
likelihood that the federal government will apply habitat
protection even on federal lands is slim as the bill is written
at the present time.
As to chances that the federal government will provide a safety
net are even smaller. Where the minister finds that the province
or territory is not protecting the critical habitat, the minister
must make the recommendation to cabinet after consulting with the
territorial or provincial minister. There is no time limit on
these consultations. They could go on for a long time. Added to
this is cabinet discretion. Conditions make it unlikely that
habitat protection provisions will be put in place in the
provinces or territories when needed.
The same can be said about the general prohibitions against
killing a species or destroying its residence. Such provisions
would apply on lands of a province or territory only to the
extent that the federal government may specify after the minister
has consulted with the province or territory.
Obviously Bill C-5 would be more effective with a time limit for
consultations and a time limit for the minister to make his or
her recommendation.
1650
I strongly urge the government to make the necessary amendments,
so as to give the Minister of the Environment the tools he, or
she, may need in the future to do what he said he would do, when
he said in the House:
Make no mistake, where voluntary measures do not work, or other
governments are unwilling or unable to act, the federal safety
net will apply.
As to the discretionary federal powers, make no mistake. We all
know these powers, which address cross border or
federal-provincial environmental problems, have existed for many
years. They are included in the Canada Wildlife Act, the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Canada Water Act, et
cetera. However, federal discretionary powers have not been
used. Why rely on their use for providing effective protection
of endangered species if in reality there is no record of the use
of such powers?
I am splitting my time, Madam Speaker, with the member for North
York. Canadians place high expectations on this government for
protecting endangered species. The legislation offers great
potential for co-operative management and stewardship of our land
and wildlife but amendments are needed. Hopefully, after hearing
witnesses the committee the government will decide to make the
necessary changes.
I will conclude by saying that we need strong legislation to
halt the continued slide toward extinction of endangered species
before it is too late.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-5. My sentiments on the
various incarnations of endangered species bills have been aired
many times in this House. I will address a few particulars of
this legislation, but as one who has followed this issue closely
for many years, I would like to begin with some broader thought.
To set a context for my comments, I will borrow a few words from
Wendell Berry, the noted farmer, poet and writer. In an essay
entitled “The Conservation of Nature and the Preservation of
Humanity” he tells us:
When we include ourselves as parts of belongings of the world we
are trying to preserve, then obviously we can no longer think of
the world as “the environment”—something out there around us.
We can see that our relation to the world surpasses mere
connection and verges on identity. And we can see that our right
to live in this world, whose parts we are, is a right that is
strictly conditioned. There is simply nothing in Creation that
does not matter. Our tradition instructs us that this is so, and
it is being proved to be so, every day, by our experience. We
cannot be improved—in fact, we cannot help but be damaged—by
our useless or greedy or merely ignorant destruction of anything.
This small quotation touches upon a number of important themes
in the debate around the protection of endangered species. First,
it emphasizes that we all too often and conveniently view
ourselves as disparate from the natural world. What possible
relationship can we have with nature, one might ask, as we hurtle
along a superhighway wrapped in an SUV with our ear pressed to a
cellphone? If we cannot see nature and we cannot hear it and we
cannot feel it, then it becomes easy to believe that it is
something that is not us, something that we engage in on our
terms perhaps when driving through a national park gate.
I believe that intrinsically most of us know that this is not
so. We are not so far removed from an age when we were more
aware of being of nature. This awareness has been buried deep
within us by the mechanism of modernity. The challenge therefore
becomes one of how can we reanimate this?
How can we bring ourselves to a place where the world ceases to
be defined in our minds as that which we have created, to a place
where the term environment is no longer a category, a
compartment, a file but instead includes us as part of this
broader natural world? Such a reanimation would help us to
abandon the current focus on, as Berry put it, our connection
with the world and lead us to an emphasis on our identical
identity. Were we to identify with nature rather than objectify
it, who knows what wonders we might achieve.
1655
Second, Berry wisely asserts that because we are of this world
there are conditions to our participation in it. The conditions
of every other species' participation are determined by the laws
of nature. We alone among species get to set many of our own
rules. For example, we can kill any species, anywhere at any
time. We can kill for fun. We can kill deliberately or we can
kill accidentally. We can kill quickly and efficiently through
direct action or we can kill a species over a long timeframe by
altering the conditions that it requires for survival. We can
even kill from great distances.
Surely some responsibilities come with such apparent exceptions
to the rule of nature. Most fundamentally, if we are in nature
and nature is in us, then the unconditional application of our
authority is nothing less than its unconditional application
against ourselves.
That brings me to Berry's third point, that our destruction of
anything in nature, whether intentional or through ignorance,
damages us. Actually, he puts it better: “We cannot be
improved” through such behaviour. The superficial and immediate
rewards of destruction may tempt but by other measurements we are
poisoning our own larder. By way of example, let me ask the
human focused critics; which of our present species of plants
would prove to contain ingredients essential to future medicines,
vaccines and cures? We cannot know this now, hence we must
accept as a condition of our participation in the world that we
not eradicate them.
When I spoke on the previous version of this bill last June, I
noted that on an issue of such fundamental importance to
Canadians as the environment, when those concerned with its
preservation and restoration rise to speak, few are really ready
to listen. Many in this place say they care and many make fine
speeches themselves, but words are a poor substitute for action.
All of the rhetoric in the world will not save a river, a fish, a
forest, nor will it protect a child from a hazardous contaminant.
Our words will not protect species at risk; only our actions
can. Discretionary authorities to act may be political deal
makers but they risk becoming convenient barriers to action in
the hands of those who do not recognize a duty to protect the
common. When we respect nature we can begin to understand the
incredible services it provides. For those who must, putting a
monetary value on nature's services is difficult for many
reasons. What price can be assigned to the last drop of water or
the last gasp of air?
On the task at hand, Bill C-5, let me first commend the Minister
of the Environment for implementing several changes to the bill
since its last appearance as Bill C-33. Most notably, the
decision to recognize the current COSEWIC list as a scientific
list of species at risk in Canada is laudable. However, in order
to trigger action, the species must be legally listed. Currently
the decision for legal listing resides solely with governor in
council. Canadians from all walks of life, including industries,
scientists, conservationists and environmentalists are concerned
that this will therefore be a political and not a scientific
decision.
The political listing approach has proven to be ineffective in
other jurisdictions. The proposed round table meetings every two
years to discuss species at risk are a welcome addition to the
bill, as are changes to what will placed in the public registry.
1700
The safety net provisions in Bill C-5 allow the federal
government to step in if a province fails to protect species.
However, the safety net is also subject to cabinet discretion.
In other words, even if a province fails to protect species there
is no duty for the federal government to act.
While the scope of the safety net provisions in a former
endangered species legislation, Bill C-65, were more narrow than
in Bill C-5, they contained a mandatory requirement for the
federal government to act to protect species if provinces failed
to do so.
One of the things that makes the public debate around the bill
vastly different from those around other so called environmental
bills is that a coalition of industry, environment and
conservation groups have come together and worked for years on
the legislation. I cannot tell the House how unusual this is. I
congratulate them for their efforts in this area. The group is
known as the species at risk working group.
Along with many other Canadians, the working group has raised
concerns that the bill does not go far enough to protect species.
It will be the role of the House of Commons Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development to hear from this group
and from a wide range of Canadians on how we can improve the
bill.
We will do nothing to protect species at risk unless the bill
leaves committee as a good, effective piece of legislation. The
House must support legislation that is strong, fair, effective
and makes biological sense. It must be enforceable and it must
be enforced.
Let me close with a few more words from Wendell Berry:
In taking care of fellow creatures, we acknowledge that they are
not ours; we acknowledge that they belong to an order and a
harmony of which we ourselves are parts. To answer to the
perpetual crisis of our presence in this abounding and dangerous
world, we have only the perpetual obligation of care.
I call on all members of the House to care about species at
risk.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened carefully to the speeches of my colleagues from the
Liberal Party and the Canadian Alliance on Bill C-5.
I will begin by quoting a successor of the former Quebec
minister of the environment, Mr. Bégin, who said this about Bill
C-5 introduced by the Liberal Party: “Another example of useless
duplication for Quebec”. These words are from
the Quebec minister of the environment, who is also the minister
of revenue and the minister responsible for the national capital
region, namely, as members know, Paul Bégin.
This is what he said when he looked at the federal government's
proposal to pass this legislation on wildlife species at risk in
Canada and to create a safety net for the protection of
threatened species and their habitat, not only on federal sites,
which would be acceptable to Quebec since it would only be
normal, but also on the whole Quebec territory, which is much
less acceptable. In fact, Mr. Bégin added:
Quebec has always behaved in a responsible and appropriate
manner regarding the protection of the most threatened fauna and
flora species and intends to keep on exercising its authority in
this matter. We will never accept an umbrella piece of
legislation covering all the initiatives in this area.
It is out of the question for Quebec to accept federal intrusion
on its jurisdiction. This bill must exclude all species, sites or
habitats under Quebec's jurisdiction and must only be implemented
at the request of the provinces or territories. Quebec has always
taken good care of its species at risk and it will not need to
use this legislation.
Quebec passed an act respecting threatened or vulnerable species
in 1989. It has its own act respecting the conservation and
development of wildlife as well as fishery regulations to protect
species at risk in their habitat. If I am not mistaken, these two
bills were passed under a Liberal government in Quebec. It is the
hon. member for Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis who deserves credit for
these two initiatives.
1705
As I will explain later, we can see that these two pieces of
legislation have allowed Quebec to address the situation of
threatened species very well.
Quebec's minister of the environment reassured us in these
terms:
These measures have given Quebec the full range of tools needed
to identify species at risk, legally designate them as threatened
or vulnerable, protect their habitats, and develop and implement
recovery plans.
I would like to talk about how Quebec has been looking after its
endangered flora and fauna for the past almost 12 years since the
introduction of the bill.
First, I will give an overview of this, to say the least,
worrisome problem of the disappearance of species, this symptom
of a worldwide problem. It is not just a problem in Quebec or in
the national capital region or in Canada; it is a problem the
world over.
The acceleration in demographic grow, the unrestrained
consumption of the planet's resources, coupled with the
occupation of land by human beings, has resulted in pollution,
the destruction of natural habitats, and the disappearance of
many living species throughout the world.
Quebec has not been spared. The great auk, the Labrador duck,
and the passenger pigeon are some of the recent victims of this
worldwide problem. These birds have not just disappeared from
our region; they have been exterminated from the face of the
earth in a few short years.
Certain more fortunate species, such as the elk and the
trumpeter swan have disappeared from our region, but still exist
in small numbers elsewhere on the planet.
Nowadays, several hundreds of plants and dozens of animals are
on the list of threatened species in Quebec.
In order to stem this alarming phenomenon, many measures have
been taken since 1978. The Association des biologistes du Québec
created a committee for the preservation of endangered species
and, in 1984 or 1985, published the initial reports on the status
of endangered plant and animal species.
In 1983 the Montreal botanical garden and institute were
already publishing a list of 408 rare plants in Quebec. I will
not give their names, but I think that the member for
Berthier—Montcalm is now consulting the list of these 408 plants
at the table.
As hon. members can see, the concern for endangered species is
nothing new. Back in 1974 Quebec passed its ecological reserves
act, one of its objectives being to protect endangered species.
The Réserve écologique du pin rigide was created in 1978 to
protect the pitch pine. It was the first ecological reserve to
protect a rare tree. In 1981 came the Parc de conservation de la
Gaspésie, created to save a distinct caribou population and its
habitat. Thus, parks and reserves are created in order to
protect certain exceptional elements of our natural heritage, the
heritage of Quebec.
Finally, and this one a major event, the government of Quebec
passed, as I have already said, its act respecting threatened or
vulnerable species in 1989, as a reaction to the increasing
threat to the integrity of the biodiversity of Quebec and in
response to the urgent and legitimate demands of the
environmentalists.
On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the enactment of this
legislation, the government of Quebec proposed a brief overview
of its major environmental accomplishments and those of its
partners in connection with endangered species.
There are some high points in the implementation of the Quebec
legislation on endangered or vulnerable species that merit
attention. I will list them if I may.
In November 1988, the Centre des données sur le patrimoine
naturel au Québec was established. In July 1992, the government
adopted the first component of the endangered or vulnerable
species policy. This policy sets out the process to be followed
for designation of a species of flora or fauna that is at risk of
becoming endangered or vulnerable. In June 1993, the Gazette
officielle du Québec, by ministerial order, published the list
of species of endangered or vulnerable vascular flora and
vertebrate fauna liable to be so designated.
This list, which dates back to 1993, comprises 374 species of
vascular flora and 76 species of vertebrate fauna of Quebec. It
is the outcome of an analysis of the available knowledge and of
consultations with a large number of specialists and
environmentalists.
In Quebec we have made protection a real issue. Species
designated or likely to become designated have been the object of
many actions aimed at ensuring their protection and
re-establishment.
Over the years, thanks to numerous studies and inventories
carried out throughout Quebec, we have acquired more knowledge of
our endangered heritage and its status.
1710
This information permitted the production of reports describing
the status of species, that is, their geographic distribution,
their habitat, their characteristics, the state and trends of
their populations and threats to them.
In Quebec the management of most biological resources is a
matter of provincial or territorial jurisdiction, with the
exception of migratory birds—we acknowledge and accept that—and
marine organisms, which are federal responsibilities.
Even before the passage of Quebec legislation on threatened or
vulnerable species, all threatened vertebrates were protected by
certain measures under the Quebec laws on the environment and
respecting the conservation and development of wildlife and
regulations on fishing.
In Quebec, 76 species or animal populations are considered to be
in difficulty, over 10% of vertebrate fauna. Most of them are
birds or mammals. However, amphibians and reptiles form the
category most affected with more than half of their species
recorded on the list of species likely to be designated
threatened or vulnerable.
Of the 76 species and populations in difficulty, 34 have been
studied or specifically inventoried; 19 have been the subject of
a status report; 14 have been the subject of a specific plan of
action, in co-operation in certain instances with the
co-operation of the federal government, bordering provinces and
non-governmental partners; 13 are covered by specific measures to
protect their habitat; and 10 are in the designation process.
Quebec's flora has not been left out either. All plant species,
except for marine plants set out in the Fisheries Act, come under
provincial jurisdiction, need I mention. At the moment, there
are, as in the case of the animals, no plants either threatened
or at risk under federal jurisdiction. The Quebec ecological
reserves act and the act respecting threatened or vulnerable
species are unique in the area of plant protection in Quebec.
Out of the 374 plant species that are threatened or vulnerable,
178 have been the subject of inventories or specific studies, 41
have been the subject of a status report and an assessment by the
advisory committee, 19 were designated as threatened or
vulnerable species, and 14 others are in the process of getting
designated.
Special measures to protect habitat or stocks were implemented
for 55 of these species, including the arisema dracontium, the
American water willow and the giant holly fern. Wild leek has
also been designated as a vulnerable species, while American
ginseng may soon be designated as a threatened species. In the
case of these last two plants, it is now prohibited to sell
specimens that were taken from their natural habitat.
As for flora, efforts have been made in co-operation with
various organizations to inform the public and develop greater
awareness. Botanists from the Quebec ministry of the environment
and their associates took part in numerous seminars and various
botanical inventories and activities to promote awareness.
Information and educational documents were published, and many
articles and specialized inserts were included in Quebec's major
natural science magazines and in some dailies. In the past few
months, the Internet site of the Quebec ministry of the
environment has been providing information sheets on certain
species that are at risk.
Quebec can also count on numerous allies. The study and the
protection of threatened or vulnerable species is first and
foremost based on co-operation between many government and
non-government partners.
Regional county municipalities play an essential role in the
protection of threatened species. In recent years, RCMs, as they
are called in Quebec, have been asked to take into account the
presence of threatened or vulnerable species when they draw up
their land use plans, so as to protect critical sites for these
species.
In 1997 the Pabok RCM even adopted the Aster anticostensis as
its floral emblem. The world's largest population of that species
is found on the territory of the Pabok RCM.
The Commission de la protection du territoire agricole and the
regional agencies promoting the development of private forests
have recently been made aware of the importance of protecting
threatened or vulnerable species.
Ad hoc joint initiatives have also been taken by Quebec and
Canada, in a positive atmosphere. For example, the Canadian
Wildlife Service and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are
the main players in the efforts to protect wildlife species that
come under federal jurisdiction, that is migratory birds, mammals
and marine fish, while Quebec's Société de la faune et des parcs
and the Quebec Department of the Environment are responsible for
all other wildlife and plant species.
1715
Over the years, these departments have joined forces with a
variety of institutions: the Jardin botanique, the Institut
botanique, the Biodôme de Montréal, the Musée Redpath, the Jardin
de Métis, the Jardin zoologique de Québec, the Jardin zoologique
de Granby and the Jardin zoologique de Saint-Félicien, and the
Aquarium de Québec.
Organizations such as the Association québécoise des groupes
d'ornithologues, the Groupe Fleurbec, Flora Quebec, the Fondation
pour la sauvegarde des espèces menacées, the Groupe de recherche
et d'éducation en milieu marin, the Société d'histoire naturelle
de la vallée du Saint-Laurent, the Société d'entomologie du
Québec, the Société Provancher, the Société linnéenne du Quebec,
and the Union québécoise pour la conservation de la nature have
all contributed actively to these efforts, along with countless
scientists, students, university researchers and amateurs from a
wide range of backgrounds.
Much of the funding for studies and activities to protect
endangered or vulnerable species is provided by the departments
responsible and by their partners. The Endangered Species
Recovery Fund of the World Wildlife Fund Canada and the partners
for biodiversity program of the Fondation de la faune du Québec
have made many initiatives possible.
Federal-provincial co-operation, with respect for respective
jurisdictions, is possible. As proof, many projects have been
carried out under the St. Lawrence Vision 2000 agreement, a
federal-provincial program involving several partners.
More recently, an administrative agreement between the
Department of Natural Resources, the Department of the
Environment and the Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec
resulted in join initiatives for the protection of forest species
at risk. The contribution of the private and parapublic sectors
is also important. Some examples are: Ducks Unlimited,
Hydro-Québec, Alcan, and the Montreal microbrewery, Le Cheval
Blanc.
Quebec's accomplishments in the area of endangered or vulnerable
species are so numerous as to be hard to count. One of the
finest of many fine examples is the Centre de données sur les
espèces menacées ou vulnérables.
The conservation of endangered or vulnerable species is based on
the available scientific data. The Centre de données sur le
patrimoine naturel du Québec, created by the Quebec ministry of
the environment in 1988, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, and
the Natural Conservancy in the United States all make active
contributions to the gathering and distribution of information on
these species.
Today, the centre is administered by the Quebec ministry of the
environment and the Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec.
It is far more than merely a focal point for collecting and
analyzing data. The information it contains is necessary for
setting priorities for the conservation of various species that
are in precarious situations. It makes it possible to determine
the phenological distribution and the population of these species
in a given area. It carries out species censuses of protected
areas, natural sites of interest for conservation.
The centre's creation has made it possible to take vulnerable
species into consideration within the process of preparing
development projects, environmental impact studies and various
research projects. Each year, close to 400 inquiries are handled
by the centre's specialists and the regional offices of the
ministry of the environment and the Société de la faune et des
parcs du Québec.
So much for the past. Now for the future. There have been a
lot of changes in the past 12 years for certain threatened or
vulnerable species. The objective of reintroducing the peregrine
falcon has been attained: new nesting sites are being
established, which holds promise for the future of this species.
Once gone from the St. Lawrence valley, hawks have now reached
their previous population levels.
The copper redhorse and its habitat are now protected. Specific
protection programs and the application of current standards will
make it possible to limit the negative impact of human activities
on the populations, migration and spawning grounds of this fish
unique to Quebec. The intervention plan for the survival of the
copper redhorse is aimed at promoting the reproduction of this
fish. Fishways and a wildlife refuge are needed for the
Richelieu River.
After a brush with extinction, the St. Lawrence belugas are
increasing in number. However, their disturbance, water
pollution and sediment continue to cause concern among
scientists. Draconian protection measures and the recent creation
of the Saguenay—Saint-Laurent marine park permit a more hopeful
outlook for the future of this species.
1720
Wild garlic has been designated a vulnerable species. This
designation brings with it the prohibition against picking for
commercial purposes. Picking it for personal use is highly
regulated. Measures of this sort have slowed the decline of
populations of this plant.
Ginseng is about to come under the protection of the act
respecting threatened or vulnerable species. The fact of its
being grown agriculturally may soon mean the demand for this
plant with its desirable medicinal properties will be met, while
the natural forest populations remain protected.
However, the wild species and their habitats remain under
pressure. Much remains to be done to conserve biodiversity.
The growing demand for the use of domestic plants for
horticultural purposes puts pressure on wild plants in natural
settings.
Similarly, the marketing of wild mushrooms is increasing and the
loss and alteration of habitats associated with human activities
is still the main factor explaining the drop in numbers for
certain species.
Forestry and farm operations affect habitats, and so does the
constant expansion of highways and cities. Acid rain,
contamination caused by the emissions produced by industries and
motor vehicles still play a major role in the acidification of
soils and waterways, thus threatening plants and wildlife.
Even climatic change force plants and animals to make
adjustments that must be carefully examined. In this context, it
is appropriate to speed up the review of the situation of
endangered species, their legal designation and the
implementation of protective measures.
We must also continue the work undertaken and widen the scope of
our studies. There are too few studies on invertebrates,
molluscs, insects and spiders or non ligneous plants, including
mushrooms.
From a legislative point of view, greater complementarity
between federal and Quebec laws would be beneficial. I insist on
the notion of complementarity, which is more conducive to success
than intrusion and duplication. The recent agreement on
endangered species helps promote greater federal-provincial
co-operation in this area.
In conclusion, as I tried to show, Quebec is doing very well
with threatened species. The member for Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis,
when he was the minister, gave us an act that is effective in
this respect, and we must think in terms of complementarity
instead of duplication and intrusion when it comes to these
threatened species.
[English]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the way we treat nature and our mixed biodiversity
translates in many ways to the way we behave as a society and the
kind of future we build for our children and grandchildren.
Intertwined with the treatment of nature and its biodiversity is
the underlying principle of equity, that is, respect for others,
respect for nature around us and respect for the ecosystems that
create life and support living.
[Translation]
This is why the bill is so important, even essential, as a tool
to protect the environment and nature.
[English]
I rejoice that Bill C-5 was reintroduced after two of the
previous bills died on the order paper. I also rejoice that the
minister brought in several changes to promote transparency and
make the bill a better one than Bill C-33.
However, there are still fundamental amendments that need to be
made. In presenting the bill the minister said “All reasonable
suggestions to further improve Bill C-5 will be considered
carefully as the bill progresses through parliament”. I am very
glad that the minister is open to amendments being made and I
hope several amendments will be made in committee.
[Translation]
I happy to say that there is almost unanimous consent amongst
Canadians for this bill. In a Pollara poll done only a very short
while ago, over 90 % of the Canadians living in urban or rural
areas said they supported a strong and proactive bill on
endangered species.
1725
[English]
Some time ago, the committee on the status of endangered
wildlife in Canada, known as COSEWIC, brought in for review a
list of 339 species that were listed as threatened and
endangered. At this point the review is nearly completed. Only
53 species need to be reviewed. By the spring the total review
will be completed.
The problem is that we leave cabinet with the discretion of when
to list these species and at what point each species will be
chosen or not chosen instead of having a startup list in the
legislation before it becomes a statute. We have been asking for
this very strongly. I do not think cabinet should be left with
the discretion of deciding when, where and what species will be
listed.
We also want habitat protection to be compulsory in the law
instead of being at the discretion of the cabinet. It is like
that in several pieces of legislation that the provinces have put
forward. There is not one substantive argument that has been
brought forward to convince us that habitat protection should not
be compulsory.
I believe that habitat protection must be compulsory on federal
lands, north of 60 and in areas of federal jurisdiction for cross
border species and species that migrate between our country and
other countries. In this connection, a letter was sent by the
United States senate to the President of the United States on
October 6, 1999 by 11 senators of both parties, republicans and
democrats alike, including the senate minority leader, Thomas
Daschle. The letter pointed out that Canada must ensure that any
new bill contains habitat protection for U.S.-Canada shared
species on all lands.
I believe that unless we can cover species and habitats on a
compulsory basis on our federal lands and on lands north of 60
for cross border species and species that migrate between our
country and other countries, our law will be left to the
discretion of this government and successive governments that may
or may not enforce it and put it into place. We need it very
badly because it as an essential tool.
The government has a wonderful chance with this bill, which will
soon go to committee. We all know there are only a few areas in
the bill that need modification or improvement in order to make
it a strong piece of legislation and one for which we can all be
satisfied and proud.
I implore the minister and the government to give the committee
a chance to work freely. Allow it to amend the bill in the
critical areas, such as the listing of habitat protection and
coverage on federal lands and in federal jurisdictions, so that
we will have a substantive bill and one that has a mandatory
safety net. A safety net that leaves discretion to the cabinet is
no safety net.
All of us know which areas need to be improved. All we need now
is that little push forward, that consent by the minister to do
what he kindly suggested to us himself, to let these suggestions
come forward so that the bill can be improved. This is my
fondest hope.
1730
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 5.30 p.m.
the House will now proceed to the consideration of private
members' business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
TAX ON TOOLS
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this
House, the Goods and Services Tax and the Harmonized Sales
Tax should be eliminated for employees in the trades who
are required as a condition of their employment to provide
the tools they need to do their job.
He said: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
Burnaby—Douglas for seconding this very important motion for
employees in the trades.
During the election campaign, I met with many constituents of
mine, particularly those who are in the trades. They said to me
“Why is the parliament not adopting regulations to give us a tax
break when we buy tools for our work?”
At this point, I would like to say that for once I might have a
bit of a problem to concentrate and to make my speech because,
being the youngest in a family of 11 children and the only one
who does not have grandchildren, I am proud to tell the House
that I will become a grandfather tonight.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Yvon Godin: My daughter is presently in the hospital, and
we never know for sure, but it seems that it will be a baby boy.
He might be in the trades one day and he could then benefit from
my motion and get a break on the harmonized taxes. This little
boy will be named Jonathan.
It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House and speak to
this motion. Employees in the trades, like miners, and mechanics
working for car dealers or in small garages, have to buy their
own tools, and they feel nothing is being done for them.
If a company needs to hire employees in the trades and decides
to buy the tools for them, it will be a tax deductible expense
for the company. Moreover, it does not have to pay the GST on
these tools. If the employee buys them himself, he has to pay the
GST.
Often people who have just completed their courses in a
community college to learn their trade have had to pay this
expensive training, and, when they look for a job in their trade,
they have to buy their tools.
For example, in the Brunswick mine, in my riding, the carpenter
had to by $1,200 worth of tools over a year, and the GST was $85.
That may not be the end of the world, but, for an ordinary
worker, it counts. Income tax is also deducted on his pay cheque.
The electrician in the same mine paid $2,918 for his tools, and
$148 in GST. For the heavy vehicle mechanic, it was $4,970, and
$347 in GST.
1735
These tradespersons say “I get up in the morning, I go to work,
I contribute and I do not want more privileges than anybody else,
but I would like to have a little more. I participate in the
economy and I help these companies to survive while supporting
myself and my family. I would like to have a little
something”.
This is much like the discussion we had here, in the House of
Commons, when we asked for tax deductions for forestry workers
who have to go out to logging camps every spring, drive their
cars, buy trucks, and so on. We asked for a tax deduction for
expenses incurred to go work in logging camps.
More and more we see workers who want to have a piece of the
pie. If employers can get tax deductions for everything they buy,
if they do not have to pay the GST or the HST, why would it not
be the same for workers? The only difference is that when
employers buy products, they do not have to pay the GST on those
products, but when workers buy products, they have to pay the
GST.
This is why workers always feel like they are being punished. I
think it would really help if, for example, tradespersons just
starting out, whether they are electricians, painters, welders or
instrumentation mechanics, were given a GST exemption to buy
their tools. I think it would be really helpful to them.
Perhaps these workers would say then they got at least a little
from the government and would like the government a little more.
Every time we talk to workers, they say the government is always
digging into their pockets, but they are the ones who help
companies survive, they are the ones who pay taxes, while the
others do not pay any. I think this would be a small reward for
these trade workers.
Perhaps the government will say, if we do this for them, we will
have to do the same for others. Well, this has to start
somewhere. There is a GST on everything that we buy, but for the
worker who has to use his tools to do his job, I think no one
would mind if this worker were to be considered the same way as
the owner of a company. It would be important for Canadians to
have this chance and this opportunity.
[English]
I think my motion is very important. It is too bad that when it
went through the committee it was not deemed to be votable. I
would have appreciated if it had been votable and left for the
members of the House of Commons to decide.
It is easier now for committees of the House of Commons to say
that it is too bad, it is not votable. I would like to see the
Liberal member across the floor face the mechanics and
electricians in his riding for whom he has refused to eliminate
the GST. Those working people just want a break when they buy
their tools. These people work all their lives. They use their
tools to earn their livings. They should be given a little break
when they start.
After they complete grade 12, they go to community college. They
pay to educate themselves to become mechanics or electricians.
When they come out of community college, they are already in
debt. They have to pay a fee to become electricians. They will
pay income tax all their lives. They will not be on social
programs. They will be prosperous in the economy. They just
want a break when they start.
We all like to flick a switch and have the lights on in our
houses. When our cars break down, we like the fact that we can
have them fixed by mechanics. When our water system is broken,
we like the fact that we can call a plumber to fix it.
Why do we not give them a little gift at the beginning of their
careers? We could say that when they buy their tools they will
not pay tax because they will probably pay income taxes for the
rest of their lives. The company that hires those people and
provides them with tools gets a tax deduction.
1740
If he is the employee though, it is another story. When it is
the working people it is like a sin if we treat them the same way
as others. I believe strongly that if we want the working people
to say good things about the government, we have to give them a
little break. It would be a break that they would appreciate.
In my riding I have lots of people in the trades. They have
come to me and asked me why they do not get a tax break when they
buy their tools. They say the government will get its money back
when they pay their income tax. Every time they get their cheque
$200 or $300 is taken off for taxes. However this little $89, or
$148 or $180 would be a welcome compensation for them.
It is the principle. Sometimes the principle means a lot. For
example, sometimes stores have a sale, say 20% off, but no one
rushes in to buy. Then they put up another sign that says GST
free. People run in and buy because, out of principle, they do
not have to pay the tax. The GST is 15% in my riding in New
Brunswick because of the harmonization. A store could have at
20% off sale but it would not have the same effect as if it were
15% because of the principle of it.
It is because of principle that we should do it. It is too bad
the committee refused. However, that was its right and I accept
that. However, it would have been nice for the trades people of
our country to get that break.
[Translation]
I used this as an example. This is a matter of principle.
People are used to seeing, when they walk in front of stores, a
20% discount on certain items. People are used to this. It is
only a 20% discount, prices have perhaps been marked up and then
the stores claim reduced them by 20%, but it is nothing more than
that.
However if people see a sign in a window saying “Pay no GST”
or harmonized tax, then they go in and say “Look, in the end I
will save money, because I will not be paying the tax”. It is
the principle of the thing. There is a reason stores do this.
It seems to bring in more customers. It does not work to offer
20% off, but if there is a sign advertising no GST, which is 15%,
that brings them in. And yet it is 5% less. It is the principle
of it.
If we were able to say that the government is doing that for
them, employees in the trades would be thrilled. It is also a
matter of principle. I know that I am repeating myself, but
sometimes it has to be said 27 times for the members on the other
side to understand. I may not have the chance to say it 27
times, but I am at least going to say it several times. If this
tax relief were to be given to our mechanics and electricians, I
think that they would appreciate it. They have gone to school,
paid for their studies and, at least, when they buy their tools
in order to join our country's labour force, they would get a
small reward. The government would not be seen as being there
solely to take their money away.
A woman in my riding told me “It is unbelievable. The
government taxes us when we come into this world, and we are
taxed right up until we are buried, because they even make us pay
taxes on our coffin”. When my grandson is born this evening, he
will be taxed as soon as he takes his first breath. We are taxed
from the time we come into this world until we die. It is
unbelievable. It is as though the government is tax crazy.
We should give people a break once in a while and show some
humanity in this case. I think it is only human to give employees
in the trades a break. I think it would boost morale and it
would help them financially.
Having finished my short speech, I would like to hear what other
members have to say.
1745
I would like to know what they think and whether they agree with
me that employees in the trades here in Canada should benefit
from a small deduction representing the 15% tax. This would show
that we appreciate these workers who must buy tools to earn their
living.
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
Acadie—Bathurst for his initiative in bringing the motion before
the House of Commons.
[Translation]
I also congratulate him on his good news.
[English]
Mechanics' tools and tools required for work seem to be a very
topical debate right now. The motion proposes that the Excise
Tax Act be amended to eliminate the application of the goods and
services tax and the harmonized sales tax for employees in trades
who are required as a condition of their employment to provide on
the job tools.
[Translation]
Currently GST-HST relief is provided via a rebate mechanism for
the GST-HST paid on those employee expenses that are deductible
in computing an employee's income from employment for income tax
purposes.
[English]
It is recognized that presently there are a number of private
members' bills, as I mentioned before, Bill C-222, Bill C-244 and
Bill C-225, before the House with respect to the income tax
treatment of the tools of mechanics and others.
As the GST and the HST rules should be consistent with those for
income tax purposes, it is prudent to await the outcome of the
debates and the outcome of the discussions on these private
members' bills. I am sure the hon. member would agree.
[Translation]
Nevertheless, it should be stated that any tax policy with
respect to the matter of employee tools should be fair. In
addition, any changes should also be relatively simple to
administer and enforce for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency,
and easy to comply with for taxpayers. In this regard, any
changes with respect to the tax treatment of employee provided
tools should take into account a number of factors.
[English]
First, any measure in this regard should be targeted to
extraordinary expenses. In other words, the cost of the tools in
question should be beyond those that most employees must incur in
the normal course of employment. The motion before the House
today would provide GST and HST relief to all employees
irrespective of the size of their expenditures instead of
targeting relief to those who incur extraordinary expenses
relative to their income.
For employees with tool expenses comparable to those incurred by
other employees this would be unwarranted as tax relief for
normal employment expenses is provided through the basic personal
exemption amount. That is the case with apprentices. Perhaps a
special case needs to be considered for those with low incomes
and high tool costs.
Second, effective control mechanisms would have to be put in
place. Under existing rules for income tax purposes the employer
must certify certain expenses as eligible for deduction from
employment income. This is important as many items provide a
personal benefit even when they are required for work. One would
need to ensure that any tax relief is provided only for items
required as a condition of employment and not for those purchased
for personal use.
This would be very difficult to do because many items could be
purchased mostly for personal reasons even if they are used for
work. For instance, the computers home based employees need to
purchase are available outside working hours for personal use. In
these circumstances providing full tax recognition and a GST-HST
employee rebate would be unwarranted.
[Translation]
Finally, any new measures would have to both take into account
the existing capital cost allowance provisions and appropriately
deal with change of use and transfers to other arms length
persons.
[English]
The provisions needed to address these issues would inevitably
be very complex since they would need to account for the large
variety of items for which tax relief may be claimed and the
different work situations in which such items are used.
To understand this, let us consider the extensive provisions
needed to ensure the equitable recognition of automotive
expenses.
Provisions governing the deductibility of employee equipment
expenditures and corresponding GST-HST employee rebates would
apply to hundreds of disparate items and numerous occupations.
1750
[Translation]
As members can see, this is a complex issue with many aspects
that need to be examined carefully. In particular, with respect
to the GST-HST employee rebate, I hope the hon. members agree
that it is essential to ensure that the GST-HST rules be
consistent with those for income tax purposes.
[English]
As a result, I think members of the House would agree, given the
number of other private members' bills dealing with the tools of
mechanics and others, that it is prudent to wait for the outcome
of the aforementioned private members' bills, for the
deliberations of the House and for any government response that
might deal with the issue of income tax deductions for employee
tools.
[Translation]
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my friend from
Acadie—Bathurst on his good news.
I agree with the purpose of the motion, which is to do our
utmost to improve the economic well-being of workers, in
particular employees in trades who need tools to do their jobs.
My father was and still is a member of the Painters and Workers'
Trade union in Toronto. And I understand what a challenge it is
to ensure that one's family has the best possible life.
Unfortunately, I do not agree with the way my hon. colleague
wants to proceed.
[English]
As I mentioned, I applaud the member's goal. My party and I
want to do everything possible to help the hard-working men and
women of the country. However I agree with my colleague for
Etobicoke North that the mechanism would be too complex given all
that was outlined. I would like to perhaps see a utilizing the
income tax system to incorporate the incentives.
As was mentioned by my friend from Acadie—Bathurst, there is a
discrepancy between workers who are workers and those who are
self-employed. Why not eliminate the discrepancy and utilize the
income tax system to deal with some of the legitimate concerns
that have been put forth by my friend from Etobicoke North?
For example, if a self-employed trades person buys a tool, it
can be deducted through the income tax system through something
called a depreciating business capital acquisition. That
basically means one can deduct a certain amount of the cost of
the tool through the income tax system.
However, as was correctly pointed out by my hon. friend for
Acadie—Bathurst, if that same person is an employee the
deduction cannot occur. However there is a provision in the
Income Tax Act, T-2200, that allows employees to claim certain
types of expenses. The rule for this would be if it is
consumable. It deals with certain types of supplies such as
paper, pens and gasoline. It would not include tools, except for
one exemption and that is what I want to talk about.
Under the Income Tax Act now, loggers are covered. Their power
saws are utilized under this part of the Income Tax Act for the
purpose of deduction.
I would propose, and I am sure my friend from Etobicoke North
would agree, that if we eliminate the complexities of applying
GST to a particular point and utilize the income tax system as I
outlined, perhaps we can work together on passing a motion which
I and the party believes is good. It would not be this
particular one. It would be one that incorporates the good
points that I and my hon. friend from Acadie—Bathurst have put
forth.
1755
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the previous speakers in
commending the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for the motion he
has brought forward.
We can tell that the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst has a
strong social conscience. So do I. This motion is consistent with
his concerns and those of some workers who do not necessarily
feel supported by society.
I am not saying that these people are working for minimum wage.
However, contrary to popular belief, these people spend a lot of
money to buy the tools they need to do their job. The key words
here are “tools they need to do their job”.
To get a job, any electrician, pipefitter, welder, building
painter, blue collar worker or carpenter needs a tool kit.
Members will see what I mean when I thank the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst for standing up for the workers who do not
necessarily get all the support they need, who do not earn high
wages but still have to incur major expenses.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the
member for Etobicoke—North, pointed out earlier, there are
before the House other bills addressing the same issue, including
one of mine. I introduced my bill in the 36th parliament.
It was called bill C-205. I have again introduced this bill,
which a committee of MPs has judged to be a votable item.
Eventually, sometime during March I imagine, we will be
discussing my bill, Bill C-222, which is aimed at allowing
automobile mechanics to deduct from their income the cost of
purchasing their tools.
The amounts involved are considerable. I am talking about the
tools required by auto technicians. I will take this opportunity
to raise the awareness of all colleagues in this House. In order
to work, an auto technician requires a tool kit worth at least
$15,000, and the amount can easily be as high as $25,000, $30,000
or $40,000. He has to have that tool kit in order to be able to
work. Today, with all the computers and electronic sensors, a
person has to have quite a tool kit in order to work.
This is a heavy burden for a young apprentice, who has just
finished a course and is saddled with student debts, whose
parents may not be well off and often have gone into debt to help
him get the minimum tool kit he needs to get a job. From my
meetings with those working in the automotive industry, I know
that the apprentice's tool kit costs at least $4,000.
1800
A young person just finishing his course and already in debt has
to go into further debt or ask his parents to co-sign a $4,000
loan for him. When he goes looking for work at an auto dealer or
a service station, he will have to have his own tools. The first
thing the owner will ask him is “Do you have your tool kit?” He
cannot be constantly begging tools from others, going into other
people's tool kits. That is not the way it works.
I am glad that the parliamentary secretary said earlier that
there were other bills before the House. I hope that when we
debate Bill C-222 he will not tell me what he did when we
debated Bill C-205. I listened very carefully to what he
said. He said “We cannot agree to deductions for mechanics.
What will we tell electricians, plumbers, pipefitters and
welders?”
He has found a way to distance himself from the entirely
reasonable and legitimate motion by the member for
Acadie—Bathurst. I do not want to start taking a dislike to the
parliamentary secretary, because I would like this motion and
mine to be approved, but he cannot have it both ways.
He tells the member for Acadie—Bathurst “Perhaps we would not
be ready to go with your approach, because there are other bills
that will cover the deductibility of tools”. I am anxious to see
what will happen.
I had discussions beforehand with the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Finance. He held this position and he told me
that he could not vote in favour of the motion. I met with
members individually and brought the problem to their attention.
I urge the member for Acadie—Bathurst to bring this problem to
his colleagues' attention, because we each of us have in our
ridings pipefitters, plumbers, automobile technicians, welders
and house painters. These are ordinary people who are not
floating in money and who are listening now, over supper in the
case of those on eastern standard time. These people are eating
their supper and saying to their spouse “That is right. A motion
like that should be agreed to, because we need this”.
I brought this problem to the attention of members of the House
and the vote at second reading was 180 for and 11 against. I
therefore hope that when it comes time to continue the discussion
on the mechanic's bill, we will remember the fine words of the
parliamentary secretary.
I will close because it is getting late. Once again, I point out
that in an earlier life, before I was elected, I worked in the
field of human resources for 16 years, 14 of them in the pulp and
paper industry.
I think that such a deduction for the cost of tools required in
employment is important.
In my work, the necessary tools have always been a pencil, an
eraser and a calculator, to some extent. I am not a mechanic buff
and my toolbox at home only includes a minimum number of tools.
But I know that there are workers who need something like Motion
No. 248, which was tabled by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
It is simply a matter of equity, of social justice.
There are other categories of workers who are already allowed a
deduction, including musicians and people who must use their car
to work. These people can take full advantage of the deduction.
Whether or not they pay the GST does not really change things,
because they can deduct the amount from their income.
It is simply a matter of social justice and equity. We just had
an election campaign last fall. Members from all parties in the
House, including myself, worked hard to get elected. We visited
many companies, small and medium sized businesses and plants.
1805
The member for Acadie—Bathurst introduced this motion in the
House. Of course, he is intelligent enough to have thought of it
on his own, but I think he will honest enough to recognize that
he did so because people have made him aware of that issue. It
must be understood that our role as members is to act as
messengers, as spokespersons for the citizens whom we represent.
This motion only asks for greater justice.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise tonight to speak on Motion No. 248. The
issue of fairer tax treatment for all Canadians is one in which
we have been actively engaged in the House over the last several
years. Fairer tax treatment for all Canadians is an issue that
has been at the forefront of my personal interest as a member of
the House since being elected in 1997.
The hon. member's motion specifically addresses the tax
treatment of those involved in trades. It would provide relief
for GST and HST on the tools required for those trades and would
certainly help, but I think we have to address the issue in a
macro sense and in a more holistic way. The whole issue of tax
reform needs to be addressed in this place, at the finance
committee and in the House.
Frankly, we should now be engaged in a budget debate. It is
late February. Every February we have a budget introduced. That
is the tradition. In fact, we do not have a budget
this year. One of my colleagues opposite, a member of the
Liberal government, has just said that we have a budget. In fact
we have a mini budget, which was introduced in October and
reflected a set of circumstances very different from those that
exist today.
We currently are at the edge of, if not a recession, certainly
an economic slowdown, which is not just a U.S. phenomenon. It is
a global phenomenon. Our reliance on the U.S. market certainly
means significant levels of concern in Canada. For instance,
yesterday in response to a survey, 57% of Ontarians expressed the
view that we will be in an economic downturn in the next year.
Canadians are very concerned.
We have a recent report from the chief economic analyst of the
Toronto-Dominion Bank, Don Drummond, who used to be the associate
deputy minister of finance under the current Minister of Finance.
In his report he said that even after the promised tax relief
from recent federal budgets, our reliance on personal income
taxes in Canada will mean that we are the most highly taxed
jurisdiction in the G-7.
The fact is that we have not even caught up to the U.S. in terms
of fairer and lower tax rates. The U.S. is preparing to leapfrog
even further ahead with a $1.3 trillion tax reduction in the Bush
tax plan, which is proceeding through congress now, garnering
support.
The government is dreaming in technicolour. The Minister of
Finance and my colleagues opposite, with due respect, are
dreaming in technicolour if they believe that we are insulated
against the effects of a significant economic downturn in the
U.S. We have not, in the mini budget, done as much as can be
done through fiscal policy to provide the level of economic
stimulus that Canadians need in the—
1810
Mr. Larry Bagnell: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am new here, but I thought we were discussing a
mechanics' bill. This member is talking about the budgets of the
United States and Canada.
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, I do agree with the hon.
member. He is new here. If he would read a little further, he
would see that we are talking about taxes and that does tie into
this subject. I certainly appreciate his intervention.
The fact is that this is the kind of debate in which we in the
House should be engaged in the context of a federal budget. My
colleague from Acadie—Bathurst has introduced the motion in
terms of a tax reform measure that would provide fairer tax
treatment for tradesmen. Other colleagues have, at various
times, presented motions to provide mechanics the ability to
write off the cost of their tools every year. These types of tax
reforms are all very important, but they form only a part of what
we should be debating aggressively in the House and at the
finance committee in the context of a federal budget.
We should be talking about issues such as capital gains taxes,
for instance, and the fact that we still have a higher capital
gains tax burden in Canada than citizens in the U.S. do This is
a very critical area as it affects the new economy. We still
have a tax burden in Canada on the corporate side which puts us
second highest in the OECD. That is of course going to have a
significant impact on growth.
My friend and colleague in the New Democratic Party may not
agree with all my positions on tax policy, but he would agree
that we need to have a legitimate debate. A mini budget was
introduced which reflected the many levels of intellect on the
opposite side of the House when it came to economic and other
matters, but that mini budget was part of another parliament.
One of my hon. colleagues opposite actually shadowed my riding
for the last caucus. I do not know the name of his riding and no
one else in the House does either. He was the shadow member for
Kings—Hants and was represented in the Liberal caucus. I want
to thank him for the great job he did, because his involvement in
representing the Liberal Party in my riding obviously helped me
to come back to the House representing the Progressive
Conservative Party for that riding. I hope he continues to do
that type of great job because he is such a likeable individual.
The fact is, that mini budget, which reflected a mini vision of
Canada, was introduced by the previous government. A previous
group of parliamentarians approved, discussed and debated that
budget. This is a new parliament. Many of the members here now
were not here in the previous parliament. The question is why
current parliaments and the current House of Commons are denied
the opportunity to debate and discuss the fiscal direction of the
country. That is what parliament is for.
We know the contempt in which members opposite hold parliament.
We have seen that demonstrated time and time again, including
during the debate last night on the motion of the government
House leader, the former patron saint of effective opposition. He
has become the patron saint of hypocrisy in terms of what he has
done in denying opposition members and, in fact, members of his
own caucus opportunities to effectively represent their
constituents in this place.
However, the fundamental issue in not having a budget and not
having an accountability for the fiscal policy of the government
to parliament goes much deeper than simply having a budget that
does not reflect current economic times. It strikes to the very
core of parliamentary accountability and respect for the
parliamentary institutions that are the cornerstones of our
democracy in Canada.
1815
We are all concerned on this side of the House. In fact many
members opposite are gravely concerned although they will not
express that in the House. They express their views of
dissatisfaction with the current government and lack of respect
paid to backbenchers behind the curtains as they impale
themselves on microphones when reporters talk to them quietly
looking for comments without names.
They are very brave when they are outside the House where they
can make comments with the impunity of comments provided as
background and without any regard or fear of repercussions from
the Prime Minister's Office or Mr. Goldenberg.
The fact is that we need a significantly renewed sense of
respect for parliament. There is no better way to provide that
in the current context than to introduce a February budget. In
the past seven years there has not been a worse February than
this one to duck the issues and not even introduce a budget. I
would like to be debating the hon. member's tax reform measures
as part of a February budget as we should be doing.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, first
of all, I would like to touch on a few points that were raised in
order to make corrections.
My colleague of the Canadian Alliance said that independent
workers have the right to deduct their expenses, but not the
mechanics or the electricians or the ordinary trade employees who
work for them.
This is not what I was saying. I was saying that, if it is the
companies, the big corporations or the small businesses that buy
the tools, they are deductible, but if it is the employee himself
who buys them, they are not deductible.
I have to disagree with my colleague from Kings—Hants, because
I am introducing a motion to assist the small mechanics and the
small electrician. However, he takes his little two minutes to
talk about corporations, to say that we should give a tax cut to
big corporations. I believe parliament talks about this day in
and day out.
It is sad to see the parliamentary secretary, across the floor,
asking me how we are going to do this. He is telling us that the
solution might be to allow those with lower salaries to use the
deduction, and not those who have higher salaries.
I have never seen the government give tax deductions to small
and medium sized businesses that do not make a lot of money and
take them away from the big companies. Strangely, they had the
formula in those days and they were able to live with big
companies that make a lot of money enjoying tax deductions. But
when it comes to workers, they cannot find a formula. What a
pity.
If my colleague from the other side, the parliamentary
secretary, has a problem with the GST formula, I would suggest
that the Liberals fulfil the promise they made in 1993 and
eliminate the GST as they said they would do in the red book. We
would have no problem with that. The tax would be eliminated for
everybody. This is what the Liberals promised in 1993: to
eliminate it altogether. Then it would not be a problem for
anybody, rich or poor. It would not exist anymore.
That is not what happened, however. It is still there. Despite
all his promises, the Prime Minister realized that he needed it.
The only thing we are asking of the government is to try to be
fair to certain workers.
It is just like eating a pie. Everyone takes only one piece, but
after it has gone around the table, maybe there is nothing left.
With the GST, we can start with one group of workers, and maybe,
in the end, there will be no more GST. It was introduced by the
Conservatives. I would say, with all due respect, that the
Conservatives may say all they want about corporations and things
like that, but they should not forget that they are the ones who
introduced the GST, who imposed this 7% tax burden upon workers.
In closing, I would ask the House to agree to my motion
unanimously. I am sure the Liberals opposite will agree, because
it is a reasonable motion. Therefore, I am asking for unanimous
consent to have my motion agreed to.
1820
If that does not work, I may bring forward another motion to
abolish the GST completely. So I am asking for unanimous consent
to have my motion, Motion M-248, agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for
the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, even
though the member did try, the order is dropped from the order
paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to seek some clarity on an
issue that I raised in the House on February 5 after the fatal
accident involving a Russian diplomat. I rose in the House to
ask two questions. Actually I asked the same question twice and
I did not even come close to getting an answer. I am very
optimistic that the distinguished parliamentary secretary, who is
commissioned today to answer the question, will answer my
question.
This question arose after a Russian diplomat was involved in a
fatal accident in Ottawa. We have recently learned that he is
being investigated for criminal charges in Russia. He has now
been fired from the diplomatic service, which is only too
appropriate. It appears that he will never come back to Canada,
at least as a diplomat, and be a menace to our society.
It was not the first time that this Russian diplomat was
involved with the police. In fact, on two other occasions he was
found to have been drinking and driving. However, after one
episode, Mr. Knyazev, the diplomat, received a letter of apology
from foreign affairs due to the manner in which we was treated by
the Ottawa-Carleton police. It appears now that the
Ottawa-Carleton police were absolutely correct and the apology
should not have been submitted to the Russian embassy.
The question that I asked twice and did not get an answer either
time was: When Canada apologizes to a country like Russia does it
not require the approval of a minister, or can just anybody
apologize on behalf of Canada? My first question was: Did the
minister approve this apology specifically? When I did not get
an answer I asked again: Who authorizes letters of apology on
behalf of the Canadian government to other governments?
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
prepared to answer all the questions the member has raised.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
manages its relationship with the diplomatic and consular
community in Canada through the office of the chief of protocol.
The department's deputy head has traditionally delegated the
responsibility to interact with the diplomatic and consular corps
to the chief of protocol, and in his absence the deputy chief of
protocol.
As part of its duties, the office of the chief of protocol is to
be accountable for upholding the Vienna convention on diplomatic
relations so as to guarantee to this community that Canada will
respect its rights to immunities and privileges under the
convention. A corollary to this responsibility is that the
office of the chief of protocol endeavours, to the extent
possible, to ensure that diplomats and consular representatives
respect Canadian laws and regulations.
In cases involving a breach of Canada's obligations under the
Vienna convention, the offended diplomat entity can at times
merit an apology. Each such incident is treated on a case by
case basis. Traditionally this responsibility has been delegated
to the deputy head of the chief of protocol or his
representative.
In the specific case which the member raises in which a letter
of apology was sent to the embassy of the Russian Federation in
July 1999, the facts were deemed to merit such an action. The
diplomat in question was handcuffed by the police, taken to the
police station and detained for a number of hours. This form of
detention of a diplomat is specifically prohibited under the
Vienna convention, and thus an apology was provided.
This apology did not receive ministerial approval but was
effected by the office of the chief of protocol under the
authority delegated to him by the deputy head.
1825
As a result of the department's analysis surrounding this recent
tragedy, a number of corrective measures are being taken to
strengthen the accountability and policy frameworks. As such,
letters of apology will receive greater scrutiny in the future
and, when appropriate, higher levels of sign-offs will be given.
COAST GUARD
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, last week I directed a question to the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans regarding the Canadian coast guard search
and rescue dive team based on the west coast, on Sea Island. The
question was this: why has the minister disbanded this dive
team?
The Canadian coast guard dive team at Sea Island was founded as
a pilot project in 1995. Previous to this, between 1985 and
1995, there were 36 deaths, at least 13 of which, it is
suggested, could have been prevented had there been divers
present. The coast guard dive team was operating on a Hovercraft
out of the Sea Island base.
In a letter I received from the minister, the reasons put
forward for disbanding the program were that there was risk to
the divers and a minimal gain. While the letter was in transit,
a tragedy did occur on the west coast. A car driven by Mr. Paul
Sandhu went over a dike and ended up in the Fraser River.
Tragically, Mr. Sandhu died in that accident.
There have been three reasons put forward as to why the dive
team was disbanded. The safety of divers was one issue. Second,
there was the issue of the need for a dive team. Third, there
was a question of jurisdiction. Exactly whose responsibility is
it for search and rescue dive capability on the west coast?
According to the minister, it is not the coast guard's
responsibility. If it is not the coast guard's responsibility,
then whose is it?
The Richmond Review published an article on this just
recently. According to an interview with Vice-Admiral Ronald
Buck, commander of maritime forces in the Pacific region, he said
that it is not the department's mandate to respond to these types
of emergencies, although it will respond when it is ordered to.
The Department of National Defence has bases in Esquimalt and
Comox, but both are quite a bit removed from the Sea Island area
where there is such heavy marine and air traffic exposed to
considerable risks.
If it is not the responsibility of the Department of National
Defence, then perhaps it is the RCMP's responsibility. The RCMP
also has a dive team, but when contacted, RCMP Sergeant Dennis
Erickson, program manager for the E division underwater recovery
team, said that his squad is not set up as a rescue team although
it will respond to distress calls. It is not the RCMP's mandate
to perform underwater rescues.
In the tragic incident involving Mr. Sandhu, the RCMP divers
arrived at the scene of the accident about 35 minutes after they
were alerted. The hovercraft based team was there within three
minutes of being notified.
The question of jurisdiction comes back to this: why was this
team disbanded? Looking at the other two issues, that is, safety
of the divers and need, I alluded to a report that said in the 10
years previous to when the dive team was originally operating,
there were 36 incidents, 13 of which might have resulted in lives
being saved.
There is no other site in B.C. and probably in Canada with a
combination of search and rescue influences like the lower
Georgia strait and the Fraser River. The factors include heavy
year round traffic, a demonstrated high frequency of capsized
vehicle incidents, close proximity to a busy year round port, and
a major urban centre. All this is in proximity to an existing 24
hour a day crewed high speed vessel platform, with personnel who
are very well trained.
The minister said he would be taking several weeks to review the
issue. Will he commit to table in the House the parameters of
the review, indicating the deadline that he has issued to his
department for the review?
1830
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to
speak today about the government's commitments to safety on the
water.
Before I continue, I wish to state that it is unfortunate that
the automobile accident in Richmond, British Columbia, resulted
in a death on February 18. My heartfelt sympathies go out to the
Sandhu family on this tragic accident.
Rescue diving was initiated in the Canadian coast guard as a two
year pilot project in 1995. The project was undertaken to
determine the effectiveness of rescue diving as a complement to
coast guard search and rescue. The pilot project was meant to
gather necessary information.
Rescue diving is not a core mandate of the coast guard. However,
the coast guard is not a static organization. It continuously
reviews all aspects of its services to Canadians as part of the
government's commitment to safety. This includes establishing
projects as necessary to ensure that the coast guard has all the
facts before recommending changes to the government.
In 1997, after two years of operating the rescue diving pilot
project, the project was extended in order to collect further
information. The coast guard did not have sufficient information
to determine the effectiveness of providing a rescue diving
capability.
In November 2000, after reviewing the information spanning a six
year period, the coast guard, in light of the low demand and low
effectiveness of rescue diving and out of concern for the safety
of divers engaged in the very high risk operations in these
activities, suspended the pilot project.
Ending a pilot project that is well known is a difficult
decision. The dedication of the professional specialists in this
project is well known. We acknowledge that. Let us not forget
that this was a pilot project. It is not the mandate of coast
guard to deliver underwater rescue services. It is noteworthy
that the United States coast guard and the British royal navy
terminated their programs for the same reasons that prompted our
decision.
As members are aware, on February 21, 2001, the minister
announced an independent review of the February 18 accident and
of the basis of the decision to terminate the Sea Island rescue
diving pilot project. Until this review is complete, and a final
decision is announced, the rescue diving project will remain
suspended.
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, last Friday I asked the minister for
multiculturalism to explain an advertisement that appeared on the
online job search for the Government of Canada. This was a job
with Correctional Service Canada that specifically excluded
anybody from applying for the job who was not an Indian person.
The job advertisement was brought to my attention by a
constituent of mine. She was highly offended that the Government
of Canada would deny her the opportunity of even applying for a
job, an administrative position in this case, with Correctional
Service Canada because she was, according to the government, not
the right skin colour or not the right race to qualify for this
job.
The government's justification for this policy was what it
called affirmative action. Affirmative action or employment
equity are racist policies that discriminate against people on
the basis of race in the hiring process. There are a couple of
things that the proponents of these highly discriminatory and
prejudiced race based hiring policies do not understand or are
not able to answer. I would like to direct my comments to the
minister about that.
First, I would like to explain to the minister, because the
minister appears to not understand, that it is not possible to
discriminate in favour of someone on the basis of race without
discriminating against somebody else because of his or her race.
For example, June Kuhn, a constituent of mine brought to my attention the
fact that she was discriminated against because she was not an
Indian. That is a blatant act of discrimination and is
unjustifiable. The person who obtained the job in this case
received it because he or she was discriminated in favour of
while my constituent was discriminated against because of her
skin colour.
1835
These policies are not only racist but highly offensive. That
is why over 90% of all Canadians are opposed to them. They are
offensive in many ways, not the least of which is the message,
which in this case singles out Indian people. The message is
that they are inferior and incapable of competing for jobs on the
basis of skills and merit, so they must therefore be provided
with special circumstances that discriminate against other
people.
I could go on for quite some time, but I will wrap this up by
asking the minister a very specific question. I request a
detailed answer. What does the minister say to my constituent,
June Kuhn, who is denied the opportunity to even apply for a job with the
Public Service of Canada because she is not the right race? What
does he say to her? Instead of politically correct rhetoric and
doublespeak, I would like the minister to be very specific in the
answer. What does he say to someone, in this case my
constituent, who was denied the opportunity to seek employment
with the federal government because she is of the wrong skin
colour?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the concept of merit as the
basis for hiring is one that we all agree on. However, good jobs
and promotions elude many visible minorities and aboriginal men
and women in Canada according to a recent report written by the
Canadian Council on Social Development, the CCSD, and based on
1996 census data.
The study, “Unequal Access: A Canadian Profile of Racial
Differences in Education, Employment and Income”, found that
while keeping education levels constant, 50% of aboriginals were
unemployed, followed by 34% of visible minorities and 25% for
non-racialized groups. Even though labour force participation is
higher for visible minorities than it is among other Canadians,
their occupational status is generally lower.
The CCSD study also found that visible minorities earn less
money than non-visible minorities with the same qualifications.
The same is true for aboriginal people and women and persons with
disabilities. Earnings gaps were found between visible minority
groups and aboriginals and white males after accounting for
factors such as education levels. The gaps increased if the
individual visible minority person obtained his or her education
in a foreign country.
Given the same education levels, aboriginal people were the
least likely to be in the top income bracket, 5.8%, followed by
foreign born visible minorities at 12.5%. Non-racialized groups
were most likely, 20%, to be in the top income bracket.
In his paper, “Immigrant Skill Utilization in the Canadian
Labour Market: Implications of Human Capital Research”,
Professor Jeffrey G. Reitz speaks of the underutilization of
skills in Canada which leads to substantial economic losses and
has a negative impact on Canadian society.
Government and its institutions must represent the people they
serve. Forty-six percent of Canadians report at least one origin
other than English or French. In order to represent all of this
diversity we must ensure that we find out why they are not
equally represented in our institutions and set strategies in
place to rectify that. Good government ensures that we help
Canadians identify and remove barriers to full participation in
Canadian society.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 6.39 p.m.
the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.39 p.m.)